Hiring Remote Workers in Los Angeles, California: A Northern Virginia Employer’s Compliance Guide

By Anthony I. Shin, Esq., Shin Law Office

1. Why NoVA Companies Keep Hiring in Los Angeles

Los Angeles has two talent ecosystems that matter to a Northern Virginia employer. The first is Silicon Beach, the technology cluster running from Venice through Santa Monica, Culver City, and into Playa Vista, anchored by Google’s massive LA office, Snap, Riot Games, Tinder and Match Group, Dollar Shave Club, Headspace, and a long bench of mid-market SaaS, AI, and security firms. The second is the aerospace corridor across the South Bay, with Boeing in El Segundo and Long Beach, Northrop Grumman in Redondo Beach and El Segundo, Raytheon in El Segundo, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works in Palmdale, and SpaceX in Hawthorne. Both ecosystems source talent that maps directly onto Northern Virginia federal contracting needs.

In my practice, the Los Angeles remote worker who reports to a Northern Virginia employer is usually a senior software engineer, AI engineer, federal cloud architect, security engineer, aerospace systems engineer, program manager, or business development professional. They live in Santa Monica, Venice, Mar Vista, Culver City, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Los Feliz, Highland Park, Pasadena, the South Bay (Manhattan Beach, Redondo, El Segundo, Hermosa), or in Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Studio City, or Sherman Oaks in the Valley. They work entirely from California for a defense prime in Falls Church, a federal cloud vendor in Reston, a consulting firm with a Tysons office, or a cybersecurity vendor in Herndon. The W-2 lists a Virginia employer. They rarely set foot in the Tysons office.

Los Angeles reads as a deep talent pool with global reach, but the employment law layer is the same protective California framework that applies to San Francisco workers, with an additional layer of city and county ordinances that go beyond state law in specific areas. A worker in Santa Monica might be covered by City of Los Angeles ordinances if you have business activity in the City of LA, by Santa Monica city ordinances if you operate there, by LA County ordinances if the worker is in unincorporated county or one of the cities that defaults to county rules, and by California state law on top of all of it. Most of those protections reach your Los Angeles remote worker regardless of where your contract was signed.

2. Where California Sits on the Compliance Map (and Where LA Adds More)

Let me put California and Los Angeles in context. In the hub guide, I break states into four non-compete groups: outright ban, restrict by rule, reasonableness, and pro-enforcement. California is the original and clearest outright-ban state, and the rule is now codified at Business and Professions Code Section 16600. AB 1076 and SB 699 in 2023 reinforced and extended the rule for the modern remote work era. The same general grouping applies to wage and hour, discrimination, pay transparency, and NDA limits, where California consistently sets the protective ceiling.

Compare Los Angeles to Austin. Austin runs almost entirely on federal law with a thin overlay of state law. Los Angeles triggers the full California state-law stack plus a city-and-county overlay. Section 16600 voids non-competes, customer non-solicits, employee non-solicits, and confidentiality clauses that function as restraints. SB 699 reaches non-California non-competes that try to restrain a California worker, with a private right of action plus attorney fees. AB 1076 required notification of current and former workers by February 14, 2024. Labor Code Section 925 voids non-California choice-of-law and forum clauses. FEHA covers all employers with 5 or more workers with uncapped damages.

For HR teams used to Texas-style hiring, the shift to Los Angeles is the biggest you will ever make. The state-law layer is the deepest in the country, and the city-and-county overlay adds rules that go beyond state law in specific areas. PAGA provides a parallel enforcement mechanism that allows aggrieved workers to sue on behalf of the state for Labor Code violations. Section 226 wage statement rules carry statutory penalties for technical violations. Section 2802 forces expense reimbursement. Sections 201 to 203 impose waiting-time penalties of up to 30 days of wages for late final pay. The cumulative effect is that California Labor Code compliance is not optional, and the cost of a single mistake compounds quickly.

Los Angeles then adds its own ordinance stack. The City of Los Angeles enforces the Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance (LAMC Section 189.00 et seq.), restricting criminal-history inquiries, the Healthy Workplaces Ordinance (LAMC Section 187.00 et seq.) providing paid sick leave above the state floor for certain employers, the Fair Work Week Ordinance (LAMC Section 185.00 et seq.), requiring predictive scheduling for large retailers, and the Wage Theft Ordinance (LAMC Section 188.00 et seq.) adding administrative wage-theft remedies. Los Angeles County added a Fair Chance Ordinance for private-sector workers in 2024 (LA County Code Title 8, Chapter 8.300), which covers a broader employer footprint than the City of LA rule and reaches workers in unincorporated areas and in cities that default to county jurisdiction. The City of LA minimum wage is approximately $17.28 per hour (mid-2024) and rises annually with the Consumer Price Index.

Independent cities within LA County add another layer. Santa Monica has its own minimum wage, paid sick leave, and Fair Chance ordinances. West Hollywood maintains the highest local minimum wage in the country (approximately $19.65 per hour in 2024). Pasadena, Long Beach, Malibu, and several other cities run their own minimum-wage ordinances. For a remote worker living in any of these jurisdictions, you need to know the local rules.

The good news is that planning ahead handles most of it. A California addendum to your standard agreement (with non-competes removed and Section 2802 reimbursement built in), a compliant job posting template, a paid sick leave policy that meets state plus the relevant city floor, updated severance templates that comply with the Silenced No More Act and Section 1670.11, and California-compliant termination protocols cover the bulk of the exposure. The local-overlay analysis takes a few extra hours but is straightforward once you know each worker’s home city.

3. Forum Selection and Choice of Law: Section 925 and SB 699

California has the most sweeping anti-forum statute in the country at Labor Code Section 925, and the most aggressive cross-border non-compete reach at Business and Professions Code Section 16600.5. Together they make the standard Virginia choice-of-law and forum-selection clause largely ineffective against a Los Angeles worker.

Labor Code Section 925. Effective January 1, 2017, Section 925 provides that an employer cannot require a California worker, as a condition of employment, to agree to a contract provision that (1) requires the worker to adjudicate outside California any claim arising in California, or (2) deprives the worker of the substantive protection of California law for any claim arising in California. The statute has a narrow exception only if the worker was individually represented by counsel in negotiating the venue or choice-of-law provision. In practice, that exception almost never applies to standard offer letters or employment agreements. For any worker living and working in California, your Virginia choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses fail under Section 925 for claims arising in California, which covers most employment claims.

Business and Professions Code Section 16600.5 (SB 699). Effective January 1, 2024, Section 16600.5 applies to non-California non-competes that seek to restrain a California worker. Subsection (a) provides that any contract void under Section 16600 is unenforceable regardless of where and when the contract was signed. Subsection (b) prohibits an employer from attempting to enforce a void contract regardless of where it was signed. Subsection (c) creates a private right of action for the worker or former worker with damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Even if your Virginia employee signed a Virginia non-compete in Virginia before moving to Los Angeles, the moment the worker is in California and the employer attempts enforcement, Section 16600.5 applies.

The AB 1076 notice. AB 1076 (effective January 1, 2024) at Section 16600.1 required employers, by February 14, 2024, to provide written notice to current and former California employees (hired after January 1, 2022) that any non-compete clause in their agreement is void. Failure to comply is treated as an Unfair Competition Law violation under Business and Professions Code Section 17200. If your company hired LA workers in 2022 or 2023 and never issued the AB 1076 notice, that is open exposure.

For everything else, Section 925 is broad enough that most employment claims arising in California will be litigated in California under California law, regardless of your Virginia clauses. Federal claims under the FLSA, Title VII, ADA, and similar statutes are governed by federal law in both forums and arrive at similar outcomes. The Central District of California (federal, with courthouses in Downtown LA and Riverside) and Los Angeles Superior Court (state) both have employment-experienced benches; you should expect to find yourself in one of those courts for any California employment dispute.

4. Non-Competes in California: Section 16600 Voids Them

Business and Professions Code Section 16600 is the cornerstone of California employment law. The statute provides that every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. The California Supreme Court in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), confirmed that California rejects the federal common-law narrow-restraint doctrine. Section 16600 means what it says.

The general rule. Any contractual restraint on a worker’s ability to engage in their profession, trade, or business after employment ends is void in California. There is no reasonableness test, no narrow-tailoring doctrine, and no judicial blue-pencil rewriting. The clause is simply void.

The narrow exceptions. The Business and Professions Code recognizes three narrow exceptions: (1) sale of the goodwill of a business under Section 16601, (2) dissolution of a partnership under Section 16602, and (3) dissolution of a limited liability company under Section 16602.5. These are commercial-context exceptions, not employment-context exceptions.

Customer non-solicits. Edwards rejected the argument that a customer non-solicit is a permissible narrow restraint. Most customer non-solicits in California employment agreements are void under Section 16600. The narrow exception is for use of confidential trade-secret information to solicit customers; a flat prohibition on contacting former customers fails.

Employee non-solicits. AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., 28 Cal. App. 5th 923 (2018), extended Edwards to invalidate employee non-solicit provisions. A clause that prohibits a former worker from recruiting current co-workers operates as a restraint on the former worker’s profession and is void under Section 16600.

Confidentiality clauses. Confidentiality and trade-secret protection clauses are generally permissible only to the extent they protect genuine trade secrets and confidential information. A confidentiality clause drafted broadly enough to restrict the use of general knowledge or skills will be treated as a functional non-compete and will be voided.

AB 1076 (Section 16600.1). AB 1076 codified Edwards and clarified that Section 16600 voids non-competes regardless of how narrowly drawn. The Act added the notification requirement at Section 16600.1: employers had to notify current and former California employees (hired after January 1, 2022) by February 14, 2024 in a single individualized written communication that any non-compete in their agreement is void.

SB 699 (Section 16600.5). SB 699 created a private right of action for workers and former workers subjected to void non-competes, regardless of where the contract was signed. Damages include actual damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. The Attorney General can also enforce. The combination of Section 16600.5 with UCL claims under Section 17200 makes attempted enforcement of a void California non-compete genuinely expensive.

Trade secret protection. Trade secret protection remains available through the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civil Code Section 3426) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1836). These statutes protect against misappropriation of trade secrets but do not create contractual restraints on competition.

5. Wage and Hour: Section 2802, Section 226, PAGA, and the FLSA

California wage and hour is the deepest layer of state law overlaying the federal FLSA. Six pieces drive most of a Northern Virginia employer’s exposure: Section 2802 expense reimbursement, Section 226 wage statement requirements, PAGA private enforcement, the Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act paid sick leave, the LA City and applicable independent city ordinances, and minimum wage and overtime rules.

Section 2802 expense reimbursement. Labor Code Section 2802 requires an employer to indemnify a worker for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of duties. For remote workers, Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (2014), held that even partial business use of a personal cell phone triggers a reimbursement obligation. The case law extends to home internet, personal computer use, and other home office expenses. Most California employers I work with pay a reasonable monthly stipend of $50 to $200 to cover remote-worker expenses, or reimburse documented expenses. A clear written policy is essential.

Section 226 wage statements. Labor Code Section 226 requires every wage statement to itemize nine specific elements: gross wages earned, total hours worked, piece-rate units and rate (if applicable), all deductions, net wages earned, dates of the pay period, the worker’s name and last four digits of the Social Security number or employee ID, the employer’s name and address, and applicable hourly rates with corresponding hours. Section 226(e) provides statutory penalties of $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation per worker per pay period, capped at $4,000 per worker, plus attorney fees. PAGA wraps Section 226 into broader enforcement.

PAGA. Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. (the Private Attorneys General Act) authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a representative action against an employer for Labor Code violations, recovering civil penalties on behalf of the state. 75 percent of the penalty goes to the state, 25 percent goes to the aggrieved employees. The 2024 PAGA reform tightened standing (the worker must have personally suffered the alleged violations), expanded cure provisions, and adjusted penalty calculations. PAGA remains the most common enforcement mechanism for wage-and-hour claims in California.

Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act. Labor Code Section 246 requires every California employer to provide paid sick leave. SB 616 expanded the floor effective January 1, 2024 to a minimum of 40 hours or 5 days of paid sick leave per year, accruing at one hour per 30 hours worked.

City of LA Healthy Workplaces Ordinance. The City of Los Angeles enforces its own paid sick leave ordinance at Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 187.00 et seq. The ordinance covers workers who perform at least 2 hours of work in a given week within the geographic boundaries of the City of LA. Accrual matches the state floor but the City ordinance has independent enforcement through the Office of Wage Standards, and the cap on use can run higher than the state floor for some tiers. A worker who lives in the City of LA and never sets foot in your Tysons office still has full City of LA Healthy Workplaces Ordinance coverage if any work is performed in the City of LA.

Independent city PSL ordinances. Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and several other cities in LA County maintain their own PSL ordinances with accrual rates and caps that may exceed both the state floor and the City of LA floor. For a remote worker in Santa Monica or West Hollywood, the local ordinance controls, provided it offers greater benefits.

Paid Family Leave. California’s Paid Family Leave program, administered by the Employment Development Department under Unemployment Insurance Code Sections 3300 to 3306, provides up to 8 weeks of paid leave for bonding with a new child, caring for a seriously ill family member, or participating in a qualifying military exigency. The program is funded by State Disability Insurance contributions. NoVA employers with California workers must register with EDD and withhold SDI premiums.

Minimum wage. California minimum wage was $16.00 per hour in 2024 and rose to $16.50 per hour in 2025. The City of LA minimum wage was $17.28 per hour effective July 1, 2024 (indexed to CPI). Independent cities run their own minimum wages: West Hollywood is approximately $19.65 per hour in 2024 (the highest in the country), and Santa Monica matches the City of LA approximately. Pasadena, Long Beach, and Malibu maintain separate ordinances. For exempt workers, the salary threshold is twice the state minimum wage on a 40-hour workweek (roughly $68,640 per year in 2025); local minimum wages do not raise the exempt threshold but do affect the minimum wage floor for non-exempt workers.

Overtime. Labor Code Section 510 imposes daily overtime after 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, or on the 7th consecutive workday, with double time after 12 hours in a day or after 8 hours on the 7th consecutive day. Most NoVA federal contractor compensation levels clear the exempt threshold under both FLSA and California’s duties test.

City of LA Wage Theft Ordinance. The City of Los Angeles Wage Theft Ordinance at LAMC Section 188.00 et seq. adds an administrative wage-theft remedy through the Office of Wage Standards. Penalties include unpaid wages, interest, fines, and possible city business license consequences. The ordinance supplements state and federal options without replacing them.

City of LA Fair Work Week Ordinance. The Fair Work Week Ordinance at LAMC Section 185.00 et seq. requires predictive scheduling for retail employers with 300 or more employees worldwide, including advance scheduling notice, predictability pay for last-minute changes, and right-of-refusal rules. The ordinance is unlikely to apply to most NoVA federal contractors, but employers with significant retail operations should map the rule against their LA-resident workforces.

Cal-WARN. Labor Code Section 1400 et seq. (Cal-WARN) is more stringent than the federal WARN Act. Cal-WARN applies to employers with 75 or more workers and requires 60-day notice for a mass layoff of 50 or more workers in a 30-day period, a relocation, or a plant closing. Cal-WARN applies to smaller workforce reductions than federal WARN and even to large remote workforces if the worker’s position is tied to a California establishment.

6. Discrimination: FEHA, Silenced No More, and the LA Fair Chance Ordinances

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Section 12900 et seq., is the broadest state discrimination statute in the country. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1001 (Silenced No More) and Section 1670.11 layer additional restrictions on confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. Los Angeles then adds the City Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance and the LA County Fair Chance Ordinance, both of which regulate criminal-history inquiries and adverse actions during hiring and employment.

The FEHA coverage threshold. FEHA covers all employers with 5 or more workers for most provisions. That is the lowest coverage threshold of any major state discrimination statute. A 6-person Reston startup with one Los Angeles remote worker has full FEHA exposure.

The protected categories. Government Code Section 12940 prohibits discrimination on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and over), sexual orientation, military and veteran status, and reproductive health decision-making.

The damages framework. FEHA damages are uncapped. Compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, back pay, front pay, attorney fees, and punitive damages are all available.

The filing deadline. AB 9 (effective January 1, 2020) extended the FEHA administrative filing deadline at the California Civil Rights Department from one year to three years.

The harassment standard. California courts apply a hostile work environment standard derived from federal precedent but interpreted broadly. Under SB 1300 (effective January 1, 2019), legally relevant evidence of harassment can include a single incident, single remark, or single act if it is sufficient to alter working conditions for a reasonable person.

The Silenced No More Act. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1001 voids any provision in a settlement agreement that would prevent disclosure of factual information related to claims of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or sexual assault. Section 1670.11 further restricts NDAs covering certain wage and sexual harassment claims. Severance NDA templates require carve-outs preserving the worker’s right to disclose protected conduct.

City of LA Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance. LAMC Section 189.00 et seq. (effective January 22, 2017) restricts when and how employers can inquire about criminal history during hiring. The ordinance applies to private employers with 10 or more workers who perform at least two hours of work in the City of LA per week. Coverage extends to remote workers who perform any work in the City of LA. Inquiries about criminal history are prohibited until after a conditional offer; adverse action based on criminal history requires individualized assessment, written notice, and a five-business-day right to respond. The Office of Wage Standards enforces with administrative penalties and a private right of action.

LA County Fair Chance Ordinance. Effective September 3, 2024, the LA County Fair Chance Ordinance for private-sector workers (LA County Code Title 8, Chapter 8.300) covers private employers with 5 or more workers who do business in LA County. The ordinance is more expansive than the City of LA rule in several respects: lower employer threshold, broader geographic reach (covers unincorporated areas and many incorporated cities that default to county jurisdiction), and additional procedural requirements for adverse actions. For NoVA employers with workforces spread across LA County, the County ordinance likely applies in parallel with the City of LA ordinance for workers performing work in the City.

Retaliation and whistleblower. Labor Code Section 1102.5 is one of the broadest whistleblower statutes in the country. The 2023 amendments shifted the burden of proof: once the worker establishes that protected activity was a contributing factor, the employer must show by clear and convincing evidence that the same action would have been taken regardless.

7. Pay Transparency: SB 1162 Requires Salary Disclosure

SB 1162 (effective January 1, 2023) at Labor Code Section 432.3 requires salary range disclosure in job postings and pay data reporting for larger employers. California’s pay transparency framework is one of the broadest in the country and has generated significant enforcement and litigation since taking effect.

The disclosure requirement. Under Labor Code Section 432.3(c), employers with 15 or more employees must include the salary or hourly wage range in any job posting. The requirement applies to any position that may ever be filled in California, including a remote position that could be filled by a California-based worker. A remote posting on LinkedIn, your careers page, or any third-party board that does not explicitly exclude California is covered if a California worker could perform it.

The applicant and employee disclosure. Section 432.3(a) and (b) require employers to provide pay scale information to applicants upon reasonable request and to current employees for the worker’s current position upon request. Internal record retention is required for 3 years.

The penalty framework. Section 432.3(d) provides civil penalties of $100 to $10,000 per violation. Section 432.3(e) creates a private right of action with injunctive relief and attorney fees. The statute of limitations runs from the date the worker learns of the violation.

Pay data reporting. SB 1162 also requires private employers with 100 or more employees to file annual pay data reports with the California Civil Rights Department, reporting workforce demographics by job category, race, ethnicity, sex, and pay band.

Practical compliance. Most NoVA employers I work with adopt a universal disclosure approach across all states with pay transparency laws (California, Washington, Colorado, New York, and others). It is administratively simpler than maintaining state-specific posting variants. A posting that nominally excludes California but is found to be filled by a California-based worker can still trigger liability.

8. Termination, Final Pay, and Severance in California

California is at-will under Labor Code Section 2922 with significant statutory and common-law exceptions. The exceptions are the federal civil rights statutes, FEHA, Labor Code Section 1102.5 whistleblower, the Tameny public-policy tort recognized in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), pregnancy disability leave, kin care leave, school activities leave, military and veteran leave, and the federal whistleblower statutes.

Final pay timing. Labor Code Sections 201 to 203 set the strictest final pay rules in the country. Under Section 201, all wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due immediately. Under Section 202, if the worker quits without 72 hours of notice, wages are due within 72 hours of resignation; if the worker gives 72 hours of notice, wages are due on the last day. Section 203 imposes a waiting time penalty of up to 30 days of wages (at the worker’s regular rate) for willful failure to pay final wages, plus attorney fees. Section 203 applies to even small unpaid amounts and is one of the most common bases for individual and PAGA claims.

Accrued vacation and PTO. California Labor Code Section 227.3 treats accrued vacation as earned wages. Use-it-or-lose-it forfeiture on separation is illegal. Reasonable caps on accrual are permitted, but earned vacation cannot be forfeited. Unlimited PTO policies face challenges: McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, 47 Cal. App. 5th 243 (2020), held that unlimited PTO can give rise to implied accrual claims if not drafted and administered carefully.

Severance releases. Federal OWBPA controls ADEA waivers federally. California adds Code of Civil Procedure Section 1001 (Silenced No More) and Section 1670.11 restrictions on NDAs covering harassment, discrimination, retaliation, sexual assault, and certain wage violations. Standard severance NDA language that worked in 2020 is now substantially unenforceable as to those topics. Templates must be updated to expressly carve out protected disclosures.

Federal Speak Out Act and FAIR Act. The federal Speak Out Act (Pub. L. No. 117-224) limits predispute NDAs for sexual-harassment and sexual-assault claims nationally. The federal FAIR Act (Pub. L. No. 117-90) limits predispute arbitration for those same claims. Both apply in California as everywhere else.

Cal-WARN. Labor Code Section 1400 et seq. requires 60-day notice for a mass layoff (50 or more workers in a 30-day period at one establishment), a relocation, or a plant closing for employers with 75 or more workers. Cal-WARN applies to smaller events than federal WARN and covers remote workforces if positions are tied to a California establishment.

Constructive discharge. California courts apply the Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238 (1994) standard requiring intolerable working conditions that would compel a reasonable person to leave.

City of LA and LA County Fair Chance Ordinances at termination. Both ordinances regulate adverse actions based on criminal history, not just hiring. A termination decision involving criminal-history information requires individualized assessment, written notice, and a right to respond. Failure to follow the ordinance during a termination can support an administrative complaint or private right of action.

9. How I Draft Contracts for Your Los Angeles Workers

For your Los Angeles-based workers, the master employment agreement plus state addendum structure I describe in the hub guide is mandatory, not optional. California has the deepest state-law overlay in the country, and Los Angeles adds local rules on top.

Non-compete and non-solicit drafting. Remove the non-compete from the California addendum entirely. Remove the customer non-solicit. Remove the employee non-solicit. Rely on confidentiality, IP assignment, and trade-secret protection under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. SB 699 makes attempted enforcement of a void non-compete genuinely expensive.

Confidentiality clauses. Draft narrowly to protect identifiable trade secrets and confidential business information. Avoid restrictions on use of general knowledge or skills.

Choice of law and forum. Your standard Virginia clauses fail under Section 925 for claims arising in California. Standard practice is to acknowledge California law and forum in the addendum for California-arising claims while preserving Virginia law and forum for general contract claims arising elsewhere.

Expense reimbursement. Adopt a written Section 2802 policy that pays a reasonable monthly stipend (typically $50 to $200 for senior remote workers) or reimburses documented home office expenses.

Paid sick leave policy. Your handbook must include a California-compliant paid sick leave policy meeting at minimum the Labor Code Section 246 floor (one hour per 30 hours worked, 40 hours or 5 days per year minimum after SB 616). For Los Angeles workers, layer in the City of LA Healthy Workplaces Ordinance and the relevant independent city ordinances if your workforce extends to Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Pasadena, Long Beach, or Malibu.

Wage statements. Audit your wage statements against Section 226’s nine-element requirement. Even minor technical violations under Section 226(e) trigger statutory penalties and can be incorporated into a PAGA claim.

Job postings. Update your job posting template to include SB 1162-compliant disclosures, including the salary or hourly wage range. Apply universally to remote postings rather than maintaining state-specific variants.

Severance templates. Update severance and settlement templates for Code of Civil Procedure Section 1001 (Silenced No More), Section 1670.11, the federal Speak Out Act and FAIR Act. Build in carve-outs that expressly preserve the worker’s right to disclose conduct the worker reasonably believes to be illegal discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or a wage violation, and to file with government agencies.

AB 1076 notice. If your company hired California workers between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of AB 1076, and those workers signed non-compete agreements, issue the AB 1076 notification to current and former workers identifying the non-compete clause as void. Late notification mitigates ongoing UCL exposure.

Fair Chance compliance. Update your hiring process for both the City of LA Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance and the LA County Fair Chance Ordinance for private-sector workers. The County ordinance has a lower employer threshold (5 workers vs. 10 for the City) and a broader geographic reach. For NoVA employers running national background-check processes, the safer practice is to apply California Fair Chance compliance (Labor Code Section 432.7 and FEHA regulations) plus the more stringent of City of LA or LA County rules for any California-based applicant or worker.

10. How I Help NoVA Employers Manage Los Angeles Workforce Risk

When a Northern Virginia employer calls me about Los Angeles-based workers, the engagement covers nine areas: the eight California-wide items I run for every California workforce, plus a ninth that maps each worker against the relevant LA City, LA County, and independent city overlays.

The Los Angeles audit I run covers: (1) Section 16600 non-compete removal and AB 1076 notification compliance for workers hired since 2022. (2) Section 2802 expense reimbursement policy with documented stipend or reimbursement process. (3) Paid Sick Leave policy meeting Labor Code Section 246 plus City of LA Healthy Workplaces Ordinance and any applicable independent city ordinances (Santa Monica, West Hollywood, others). (4) Section 226 wage statement audit against the nine-element requirement, including PAGA exposure mapping. (5) SB 1162 job posting template and applicant and employee disclosure procedures. (6) FEHA and Silenced No More-compliant harassment training, investigation standards, and severance templates. (7) Final pay protocols matched to Section 201 to 203 timing with Section 203 waiting time penalty analysis. (8) Cal-WARN protocol for any reduction in force. (9) City of LA Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance and LA County Fair Chance Ordinance compliance for the hiring and adverse-action processes.

From there, the engagement typically moves through redrafting the California addendum to the master employment agreement, adjusting the separation playbook for California-specific final pay and Silenced No More release rules, and providing HR training tailored to California standards and the LA local overlay. The work usually takes several weeks for a company with a handful of LA workers and scales up substantially for larger California workforces.

For litigation strategy, Los Angeles-based disputes go to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (federal, with courthouses in Downtown LA, Santa Ana, and Riverside) or Los Angeles Superior Court (state). Both run experienced employment dockets. The federal court handles Section 16600.5, FLSA, and federal civil rights claims regularly. The state court handles FEHA, Labor Code, PAGA, and Section 16600 claims. EDVA is generally unavailable to California workers for California-arising claims under Section 925’s forum-default rule.

My approach with every client is the same. You talk to me directly. Strategy comes from preparation. The right outcome is rarely one answer; it is a system that makes the next hire, the next move, the next separation, and the next complaint easier to handle without exposure. That system works at any size, whether you have one Los Angeles engineer or twenty distributed across the LA metro.

Summary

Los Angeles runs on the full California statutory framework plus a layered city and county ordinance overlay. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 voids non-competes outright. SB 699 extends the ban to non-California non-competes that try to restrain a California worker, with a private right of action plus attorney fees. AB 1076 required notification of current and former workers by February 14, 2024 that any non-compete in their agreement is void. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen and AMN Healthcare v. Aya Healthcare extended Section 16600 to customer and employee non-solicits.

Labor Code Section 925 voids any non-California choice-of-law or forum clause for claims arising in California. FEHA covers all employers with 5 or more workers with uncapped damages and a 3-year administrative filing deadline. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1001 (Silenced No More) and Section 1670.11 void most NDAs covering harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and sexual assault.

Labor Code Section 2802 requires reimbursement of all necessary business expenses, including a portion of home internet and cell phone for remote workers. Section 226 imposes nine-element wage statement requirements, with statutory penalties of $50 to $100 per worker per pay period, plus attorney’s fees. PAGA (Sections 2698 et seq.) creates a representative action mechanism for Labor Code violations. SB 1162 (Section 432.3) requires salary range in every covered job posting with penalties of $100 to $10,000 per violation plus a private right of action. SB 616 expanded paid sick leave to 40 hours or 5 days per year effective January 1, 2024. Final pay timing under Section 201 to 203 is the strictest in the country, with immediate payment on discharge and a 30-day waiting-time penalty for willful non-payment. Accrued vacation is treated as wages under Section 227.3. Cal-WARN is more stringent than federal WARN.

Los Angeles adds the City of LA Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance, the Healthy Workplaces Ordinance, the Fair Work Week Ordinance for retail, and the Wage Theft Ordinance. Los Angeles County added a Fair Chance Ordinance for private-sector workers in 2024. Independent cities (Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Pasadena, Long Beach, Malibu) maintain their own minimum wage and paid sick leave ordinances. For Los Angeles-resident workers, compliance planning must map worker locations to the appropriate overlay.

For the framework that runs through every state guide in this series, see my cornerstone guide for hiring out-of-state remote workers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Anthony I. Shin, Esq.

PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY

Practice Areas
Meet Our Team
Shin Law Office, PLC
Leesburg, VA

 

Related Guides

References