In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California passed the “Right to Recall” law, which requires employers in the building services and hospitality industries to offer laid-off employees an opportunity to be rehired before hiring a new employee to fill the position. Now that most businesses and companies are ramping back up and returning to work, employers covered by the Right to Recall law must ensure compliance with California’s recall requirements or face steep penalties.
Who is Covered?
The Right to Recall law is limited in application as to which employers and employees are covered.
The law applies to employers at hotels and private clubs with 50 or more guest rooms, public and private event centers, and airport hospitality operations and service providers. Event centers include a structure used for the purpose of public performances, sporting events, or similar events, such as concert halls, stadiums, sports arenas, and convention centers, provided they are more than 50,000 square feet in size or have more than 1,000 seats. The law also applies to janitorial, building maintenance, and security services for office, retail, or other commercial buildings. In addition, businesses that meet these requirements and have changed ownership or structure must also comply with the law. Any employer of a covered enterprise must comply with the recall provisions regardless of the number of its employees.
Qualified laid-off employees include those who were employed for six months or longer during the twelve months before January 1, 2020, worked at least two hours per week, and most recently separated from employment because of any economic, non-disciplinary reason related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including lack of business, a government shut-down order, or public health directive. A covered employee is deemed qualified if the individual held the same or similar position at the time of the lay-off. However, employees that have been terminated for cause, including the failure to comply with company policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination, do not qualify and are not covered under the Right to Recall law.
What is Required?
Within five days of a job opening, an employer must provide a written offer of the available position to laid-off employees who held the same or similar position before the lay-off. The employer can make a single offer to the employee with the most seniority or multiple contingent offers to a group of eligible employees. If multiple laid-off employees accept the same offer, the position must be given to the employee with the most seniority based on their hire date. An employee is allowed five business days to accept an offer if the employee wants to be re-hired. If no laid-off employees accept the job offer, the employer may hire anyone else including a new employee to fill the position. However, an employer must continue to offer positions to all qualified laid-off employees, even if the employee has previously declined an offer to be re-hired for a prior position.
Employers must also keep records for at least three years from the date of a lay-off notice, including the laid-off employee’s full name, job classification, date of hire, last known address of residence, email address, telephone number, a copy of the lay-off notice, and copies of all communication between the employer and employee concerning employment offers made under the Right to Recall law.
Penalties for Noncompliance
Penalties for noncompliance are steep and include potential reinstatement of the laid-off employee and compensation for front pay, back pay, and lost benefits. In addition, an employer may be fined $100 for every employee whose rights were violated and fined another $500 per employee per-day penalty for each day of the violation until the violation is cured. The state enforcement agency, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), has already conducted investigations for non-compliance with the Right to Recall and issued hefty penalties to employers. The DLSE reported recently that it fined the Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes, California nearly $3.3 million based on the DLSE’s finding that it failed to rehire workers laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic before hiring new employees to fill positions.
Takeaways for California Employers
This law is in effect until December 31, 2024, so employers must develop a process for employee recall that includes compliance with California’s Right to Recall law. In addition, some cities, including Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, and Oakland, have previously adopted recall ordinances that require additional steps by employers during the recall process. Employers should evaluate whether they are also subject to local ordinances that may affect their re-hiring of laid-off employees.
If you have questions about your return-to-work business plans, contact the authors or your usual trusted counsel at AALRR.
This AALRR post is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.
© 2022 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
- Senior Associate
Lauren S. Gafa is an associate in the Commercial and Complex Litigation Practice Group. She works with many clients in a variety of industries including entertainment and media, environmental, financial services, life sciences ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- New San Diego County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- New Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- Legislation Impacting California Employee Handbook Policies for 2025
- Update on the California Health Care Minimum Wage
- Resources for California Employers to Track and Confirm Their State and Local Minimum Wage Requirements
- 11 Local Minimum Wage Ordinances Poised to Increase on July 1, 2024
- Fast Food Restaurants -- Be Prepared for a DIR Audit
- U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Proving Discrimination Claims
- Governor Signs Urgency Legislation Exempting Certain Restaurants from New Fast Food Minimum Wage
- Sexual Violence and Harassment Prevention Training for Janitorial Service Providers Goes Into Effect
Popular Categories
- (156)
- (53)
- (25)
- (39)
- (42)
- (36)
- (6)
- (23)
- (15)
- (15)
- (6)
- (7)
- (6)
- (6)
- (9)
- (6)
- (4)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Eddy R. Beltran
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Lauren S. Gafa
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011