New California Law Imposes Liability on Companies Where Labor Contractors fail to pay Wages or Provide Workers’ Compensation Insurance
1 min read
Sep 29, 2014
On Sunday, September 28, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1897 (D-Hernandez), which imposes liability on companies who use subcontracted temporary labor if the temp company fails to pay wages or provide valid workers’ compensation coverage. The bill applies where a temp company supplies workers to a client employer to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business.
Thus, for example, if the temp agency fails to pay wages to the subcontracted employee, the client company will share liability with the temp company.
The law will have repercussions in the burgeoning temp industry because one of the selling points for such companies has always been that they provide workers to clients while taking upon themselves all of the headaches of employee management — including absorbing liability under applicable employment laws. Now, when a temp agency fails to pay wages or provide workers compensation insurance, the client company will be on the hook. As a result, companies that normally use labor contractors to avoid the hassles of dealing with employees will of necessity need to concern themselves with whether the contractors are complying with the law as regards those temp workers.
Since this new law could potentially harm the market for subcontracted labor, it is important to note following language in the statute:
"This section does not prohibit a client employer from establishing, exercising, or enforcing by contract any otherwise lawful remedies against a labor contractor for liability created by acts of a labor contractor.”
In other words, the law appears to contemplate the possibility of temp companies contracting to indemnify or otherwise hold the client employer harmless where the labor contractor’s failure results in liability for the client employer. For larger staffing companies especially — i.e., those with cash reserves and adequate insurance — such a guarantee could go a long way toward removing some of the sting from the new law by alleviating client anxieties.
Please contact the author if you have any questions regarding this new California statute.
Topics
Featured Insights

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Apr 9, 2026
6 Key Takeaways From the IAPP 2026 Global Summit for Privacy Compliance Professionals

In The News
Apr 9, 2026
Megan Lopp Mathias Discusses Future of DEI Employment Initiatives

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Apr 8, 2026
After Arbitration, Does a District Court Have Jurisdiction to Confirm or Vacate an FAA Award?



