The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment – Day 6 -"Do Not Retaliate in Emergency Conditions"
In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this sixth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: six geese-a-laying and SB 1044.

The bill includes numerous terms that could be deemed vague or ambiguous. Certain definitions are provided to alleviate employer confusion. First, what defines an emergency condition? Per the law, an emergency condition means the existence of either of the following (1) conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property at the workplace or worksite caused by natural forces or a criminal act; or (2) an order to evacuate a workplace, a worksite, a worker's home, or the school of a worker's child due to natural disaster or a criminal act. What is important to note is that it specifically does not include a health pandemic. Thus, COVID-19 is not considered an emergency condition that employees can use under the new law.
The phrase "reasonable belief" is likely to be the most problematic term as each employee can argue their own belief. However, per SB 1044, a "reasonable belief that the workplace or worksite is unsafe" means that a reasonable person, under the circumstances known to the employee at the time, would conclude there is a real danger of death or serious injury if that person enters or remains on the premises. The existence of any health and safety regulations specific to the emergency condition and an employer's compliance or noncompliance with those regulations shall be a relevant factor if this information is known to the employee at the time of the emergency condition or the employee received training on the health and safety regulations mandated by law specific to the emergency condition.
In the event of an emergency condition, SB 1044 notes an employer cannot: 1) take or threaten adverse action against any employee for refusing to report to, or leaving, a workplace or worksite within the affected area because the employee has a reasonable belief that the workplace or worksite is unsafe; or 2) prevent any employee from accessing the employee's mobile device or other communications device for seeking emergency assistance, assessing the safety of the situation, or communicating with a person to verify their safety.
Employers should ensure their emergency safety plans are in order and that appropriate supervisors or management are aware of this new law and procedure so that absences can be tracked appropriately to avoid issues. Failure to address the absence correctly could lead to a PAGA claim. But, SB 1044 allows an employer to cure any alleged violation before a PAGA lawsuit may be filed.
There are exceptions to who can refuse to report or leave a worksite due to an emergency condition. This includes first responders, disaster service workers, an employee required by law to render aid, certain health care workers, certain employees who provide emergency services, military base workers, essential workers at a nuclear plant, employees of a company providing utility, communications, energy, or roadside assistance during emergencies, licensed residential care employees, an employee of a depository, transportation employees participating directly in emergency evacuations, and other employees whose job involves assisting with emergency conditions.
An employee under SB 1044 must provide notice to the employer prior to leaving or not reporting to work when feasible. If that is not possible, an employee must notify the employer as soon as possible.
Topics
Featured Insights

In The News
Oct 23, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses Potential Impact of Proposition 44 on California Community Clinics

In The News
Oct 21, 2026
Scott Seaman Says Walmart Ruling is an "Aberration" in the Opioid Insurance Battle

Event
October 21 – 23, 2026
D.L. Morriss Presents on International Banking Litigation and AI Regulation

Press Release
Oct 20, 2026
Seasoned Litigator Joins Hinshaw's Aviation and Aerospace Team in Chicago

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 19, 2026
Refile, Repeat: Ohio’s Savings Statute Allows for Unlimited Bites of a Time-Barred Claim

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 16, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 ACVL Conference for the Auto Finance Industry

Press Release
Oct 16, 2026
Nia Binns Re-Appointed Health and Wellness Committee Co-Chair of the BWLA

In The News
Oct 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Explains How Bond Request Spurred AG Settlement in Paramount Merger

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 15, 2026
OCC Releases Debanking Report on Largest Banks; CFPB Announces Follow-On Initiative



