Can I Be Fired for Calling in Sick in California?

HOME › CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW › MEDICAL LEAVE VIOLATIONS › Can I Be Fired for Calling in Sick?

Updated April 2026 to reflect SB 616's expanded paid sick leave mandate effective January 1, 2024, current CFRA and FMLA protections for medical absences, FEHA's disability accommodation framework, and 2025–2026 California Labor Commissioner enforcement priorities.

You called in sick. Now you're wondering whether your job is safe.

In California, that concern is legitimate — but the legal answer is more nuanced than most employees expect.

Being fired for calling in sick is sometimes lawful and sometimes not, and the difference turns on a set of specific statutory protections that most employees have never read. The right question is not whether you called in sick — it is whether the absence you took, or the underlying condition behind it, was legally protected.

California offers some of the strongest sick leave and medical absence protections in the country. Most employees are significantly more protected than they realize.

And most employers who terminate employees for sick-related absences do so either in violation of a specific statute or in retaliation for something they were legally prohibited from acting on.

Here is the complete framework.

What California Law Actually Protects — The Three-Statute Foundation

California's sick leave and medical absence protections do not come from a single law. They arise from three overlapping statutes that collectively cover almost every form of medical absence — from a single sick day to a months-long absence due to a serious health condition. Understanding which statute applies to your situation determines the specific protection available.

The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act — Paid Sick Leave

The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, codified at Labor Code § 246, requires California employers to provide paid sick leave to employees who have worked for the employer for 30 or more days.

Effective January 1, 2024, SB 616 significantly expanded the entitlement — employees now accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and are entitled to use up to 40 hours (five days) per year, up from the prior 24 hours (three days).

Employers who front-load paid sick leave must provide at least 40 hours — or five days — at the start of the accrual year.

Under Labor Code § 246.5, employers are expressly prohibited from denying an employee the right to use accrued sick leave, from taking any adverse action against an employee for using or attempting to use sick leave, or from retaliating against an employee who complains about a violation of the sick leave statute.

The qualifying reasons for using accrued sick leave are broad:

• Diagnosis, care, or treatment of a physical or mental health condition — for the employee or a qualifying family member

• Preventive care for the employee or a qualifying family member

• Leave related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking

An employer who disciplines or terminates an employee for using any of these qualifying absences — within the annual 40-hour entitlement — has violated Labor Code § 246.5. The violation is actionable through a complaint to the California Labor Commissioner and through civil litigation.

FEHA — When the Illness Is a Disability

The Healthy Workplaces Act covers sick days taken in isolation. Government Code § 12940 covers a broader category: any physical or mental condition that qualifies as a disability under FEHA.

Under FEHA, a disability is broadly defined as any condition that limits a major life activity, including working. This includes chronic conditions, recurring illnesses, post-surgical recovery, mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, and temporary conditions serious enough to impair functioning. An employer with five or more employees is subject to FEHA's protections.

FEHA creates two overlapping obligations when an employee's sick-related absence is connected to a disability:

The non-discrimination obligation. An employer cannot terminate or otherwise act adversely against an employee because of the employee's disability. A termination triggered by absences caused by a qualifying disability is disability discrimination — the analysis looks through the absence to its cause.

The accommodation obligation. Under Government Code § 12940(m), employers must provide reasonable accommodation for a known disability unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Reasonable accommodation in the absence context includes modifying attendance policies, providing additional unpaid leave beyond statutory entitlements, and allowing intermittent absences when medically necessary.

The interactive process obligation. Under Government Code § 12940(n), employers must engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process with any employee who requests accommodation or whose disability becomes apparent. An employer who fires an employee without first engaging this process — when the absences were caused by a known or apparent disability — has committed an independent FEHA violation regardless of the number of absences involved.

CFRA — When the Illness Requires Protected Leave

When an absence extends beyond isolated sick days into a genuine medical leave situation, the California Family Rights Act provides the third layer of protection. Government Code § 12945.2 entitles eligible employees to up to 12 weeks of protected, job-guaranteed leave per year for a serious health condition — the employee's own or a qualifying family member's.

An employer with five or more employees must provide CFRA leave to any employee who has worked for the employer for at least 12 months and at least 1,250 hours in the prior 12 months. Terminating an employee for taking CFRA-protected leave — or for requesting it — constitutes interference with a statutory right and is independently actionable.

For the complete framework on what qualifies as a serious health condition, how intermittent CFRA leave works, and what happens when CFRA leave is exhausted, see our California medical leave violations guide.

When Firing for Calling in Sick Is Illegal — The Specific Scenarios

The three statutes above create specific scenarios in which terminating an employee for sick-related absences is unlawful. These are not edge cases — they are the most common sick-leave termination situations in California employment litigation.

Firing for using protected paid sick leave. If you used accrued paid sick leave for a qualifying reason — your own illness, a family member's medical appointment, or preventive care — and your employer terminated or disciplined you for that absence, the termination violates Labor Code § 246.5. The analysis is straightforward: the absence was legally protected, and the adverse action taken in response to it is prohibited.

Firing for absences caused by a disability. If your absences — however frequent — are caused by a physical or mental condition that qualifies as a disability under FEHA, terminating you for those absences may constitute disability discrimination. The employer's duty is to evaluate whether accommodation is possible, not to terminate based solely on attendance numbers. An employer who fires an employee with documented multiple sclerosis for "excessive absenteeism" without exploring accommodation has committed disability discrimination, even if the attendance policy was applied consistently.

Firing for requesting or taking CFRA leave. If your absence involved a serious health condition qualifying for CFRA protection, the termination is an interference with a statutory leave right — regardless of how the employer characterizes it. This applies even if the employer claims the position was eliminated or the employee was terminated for performance, when the termination occurs during or immediately after protected CFRA leave.

Firing in retaliation for a complaint about sick leave rights. If you reported that your employer was violating the paid sick leave law — to HR, to a supervisor, or to the Labor Commissioner — and your termination followed that report, the termination is retaliation for protected whistleblower activity. Labor Code § 246.5 explicitly prohibits adverse action against an employee who exercises or attempts to exercise sick leave rights.

What California Law Does NOT Require — The Limits of Protection

Understanding the limits matters as much as understanding the protections.

Employers can enforce reasonable attendance policies — including policies that address excessive absenteeism — as long as those policies do not target legally protected absences. An employee who exhausts all protected leave entitlements and continues to be absent without a qualifying reason under any statute may be subject to legitimate discipline.

Employers are not required to accommodate unlimited absences. FEHA's accommodation obligation has a limit — undue hardship. A small employer whose operations are genuinely compromised by ongoing unpredictable absences may have a legitimate defense that a large employer in the same situation does not.

Not every illness is a FEHA disability. A minor, isolated illness of short duration — a cold, a 24-hour flu, a brief injury — may not meet FEHA's disability definition if it does not limit a major life activity. In that case, CFRA and FEHA's disability protections may not apply, though the paid sick leave statute still does.

No-fault attendance policies are lawful — with one critical exception. Employers may apply no-fault attendance policies that accumulate absences regardless of the reason. But CFRA and FMLA-qualifying absences must be excluded from those counts. An employer who counts a CFRA-qualifying absence toward a no-fault attendance threshold and terminates based on that count has committed interference. For a full analysis of how no-fault attendance policies create CFRA violations, see our guide to intermittent leave under CFRA and FMLA in California.

How Courts Evaluate Sick-Leave Terminations — What Evidence Matters

Most sick-leave termination cases do not involve an employer who announces that the firing was for protected leave. They involve employers who offer a different explanation — excessive absences, performance, attitude, or position elimination — while the real reason was a protected absence or the underlying condition.

Evaluating whether the stated reason holds up requires examining the evidence:

Evidence Type	What It Establishes	Why It Matters
Timing of termination relative to absence or leave request	Causal connection between protected activity and adverse action	Close proximity creates inference of retaliation
Prior performance record	Whether stated performance reason is pretextual	Clean prior record undermines performance justification
Attendance policy documentation	Whether CFRA-protected absences were improperly counted	Establishes interference claim
HR communications during absence	Whether employer knew about protected status	Establishes notice for FEHA and CFRA purposes
Comparator treatment	Whether similarly absent non-protected employees were treated differently	Establishes discriminatory application of attendance policy
Interactive process documentation	Whether employer fulfilled FEHA accommodation duty	Absence of documentation establishes § 12940(n) violation
Medical certification	Whether absence qualified for CFRA protection	Establishes interference claim

The most powerful fact pattern in sick-leave termination cases is clean: the employee had no documented performance concerns before the protected absence, the employer was notified of the medical basis for the absence, and the termination followed closely after. That sequence, on its own, is sufficient to survive summary judgment in most California courts.

Real Cases — Sick Leave Terminations in California

Retail, Los Angeles. A store associate with type 2 diabetes had taken six absences over four months — each related to blood sugar complications that required same-day medical attention. Her employer's no-fault attendance policy triggered a termination warning after six absences. HR did not inquire about the medical basis for any absence, did not offer an accommodation discussion, and did not designate any absence as CFRA-qualifying.

The termination that followed violated both FEHA — failure to accommodate a disability — and CFRA — failure to designate and protect qualifying absences. The employer's argument that the attendance policy was applied consistently was rejected: the policy, as applied to absences caused by a disability, required reasonable accommodation analysis before enforcement.

Use our FEHA Claim Checker to evaluate whether your absences were caused by a condition that qualifies as a disability under FEHA.

Technology, San Francisco. A software developer requested CFRA leave for a serious mental health condition — severe depression requiring a period of intensive outpatient treatment. His employer approved the first two weeks, then called him during the leave to discuss a project deadline and ask when he would return. When he requested two additional weeks per his psychiatrist's recommendation, he was told his position was being eliminated due to restructuring.

The restructuring had not been documented prior to his leave request. The CFRA interference claim was supported by the absence of pre-leave restructuring documentation and the employer's contact during leave, which itself constituted interference with the exercise of leave rights. The FEHA disability discrimination claim was supported by the termination occurring immediately after the employee's request for extended leave due to a disabling condition.

Healthcare, San Diego. A medical assistant took five days of accrued paid sick leave to care for her mother following surgery — a qualifying use under the Healthy Workplaces Act's family care provision. Her supervisor, who was unaware the Act covered family care, issued a written warning for "unauthorized absence" and placed her on a performance improvement plan. When she raised the issue with HR, citing the Act, she was terminated two weeks later.

The termination was retaliation for asserting her sick leave rights — independently actionable under Labor Code § 246.5 regardless of whether the PIP itself was contested. If you were disciplined after raising your sick leave rights with your employer, our wrongful termination case qualifier evaluates whether the sequence of events supports a retaliation claim.

What to Do If You Were Fired for Calling in Sick

• Document the medical basis for every absence. A doctor's note, a medical appointment confirmation, a pharmacy receipt, or a telehealth visit record establishes the medical basis for the absence and ties it to a potentially qualifying condition. This documentation is the foundation of both the sick leave claim and any FEHA disability argument.

• Request your personnel file immediately. Under California Labor Code § 1198.5, your employer must provide access to your personnel file within 30 days of a written request. The file will show what was — and was not — documented before your termination, whether any CFRA designation was recorded, and what attendance records the employer maintained.

• Identify which statute applies to your situation. If you used accrued paid sick leave within the 40-hour annual entitlement — Labor Code § 246.5. If your absences were caused by a disability — FEHA. If your absence involved a serious health condition requiring leave, CFRA. If more than one applies — which is common — all available claims should be pursued together.

• File within the deadline. FEHA claims must be filed with the California Civil Rights Department within three years of the adverse action. CFRA claims follow the same CRD process. Labor Code § 246.5 retaliation claims can be filed with the Labor Commissioner or directly in civil court within three years. Missing any of these deadlines permanently bars the claim.

For the complete California medical leave violations framework — including what qualifies as a serious health condition, how CFRA interference and retaliation claims work, and the FEHA accommodation obligation that extends beyond CFRA exhaustion — see our California medical leave violations guide.

For the full California wrongful termination framework, see our California wrongful termination guide.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can my employer fire me for calling in sick too often?

It depends on why you were sick. If the absences are caused by a disability — a chronic condition, a recurring illness, a mental health condition — FEHA's reasonable accommodation obligation requires the employer to evaluate whether accommodation is possible before terminating. If the absences qualify for CFRA leave, they cannot be counted toward an attendance policy. If the absences fall within the annual 40-hour paid sick leave entitlement, terminating for those absences violates Labor Code § 246.5. Only when absences are genuinely unprotected under all three frameworks does "too many sick days" become a lawful basis for termination.

What changed under SB 616 in 2024?

SB 616, effective January 1, 2024, expanded California's paid sick leave entitlement from 24 hours (three days) to 40 hours (five days) per year. Employees accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and can use up to 40 hours annually. Employers who front-load sick leave must provide at least 40 hours at the start of the year. The anti-retaliation protections of Labor Code § 246.5 apply to the full 40-hour entitlement.

Does FEHA protect me if I am sick but don't have a diagnosed condition?

FEHA's disability protection applies to conditions that limit a major life activity — including those that have not been formally diagnosed if the symptoms are apparent and impairing. A formal diagnosis significantly strengthens the FEHA argument, but the absence of one does not automatically defeat the claim. If your absences are caused by observable symptoms of a limiting condition, the condition may qualify as a disability regardless of whether a physician has formally named it.

Can my employer require a doctor's note every time I call in sick?

Yes — with limits. Employers may require medical documentation for sick leave use, but they cannot impose documentation requirements so burdensome that they effectively deter employees from exercising their statutory rights. Under CFRA, employers may require medical certification for leave qualifying as a serious health condition. For single-day paid sick leave use, a blanket policy requiring documentation for every absence may be challenged as an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right to use accrued sick leave.

What if my employer has a no-fault attendance policy?

No-fault attendance policies — which accumulate absences regardless of reason — are lawful in California with one critical exception: CFRA and FMLA-qualifying absences must be excluded from the count. An employer who counts protected leave absences toward a no-fault attendance threshold, and disciplines or terminates based on that count, has committed CFRA interference. The no-fault policy does not override the statutory protection — it must be applied in a way that excludes protected absences.

What should I do if my employer is pressuring me to come in while I'm sick?

Document every instance of pressure — emails, texts, voicemails from your supervisor — and your response. Pressure to return from protected leave is itself a form of interference with leave rights under CFRA. If the pressure is accompanied by veiled or explicit threats about your job security, it strengthens both the interference claim and any subsequent retaliation claim if the termination follows. Responding in writing — "I am following my doctor's instructions and will return on [date]" — creates a dated record of your protected exercise of the leave right.

Connect With a Vetted California Employment Attorney

Sick leave terminations frequently involve overlapping statutory protections — paid sick leave, FEHA disability rights, and CFRA — and missing one layer of the claim means leaving viable legal theories and recoverable damages on the table. Early legal consultation ensures the full picture is identified before any deadline passes.

DISCLOSURE

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. 1000Attorneys.com is a State Bar of California Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service (LRS #0128), not a law firm.