Employer Alert: California Extends Supplemental COVID-19 Sick Leave, Adds Relief Grants for Certain Employers


“What is behind me still remains of ahead of me.” –László Krasznahorkai

On the surface, it looks like things are back to normal. Entering spooky season, however, California employers should not assume the coast is clear. One of the nation’s most substantial COVID-19 laws, California’s Supplemental COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave (“SPSL”), did not end on Friday, as originally scheduled. On Sept. 29, 2022, Governor Newsom extended it to Dec. 31, 2022. California employers with 26 or more employees will still be required to provide Supplemental COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave. This departs from last year, where the law expired in September 2021, and California did not resurrect it until late February (with a retroactive application to Jan. 1, 2022).

The extension adds one major development: is certain businesses might be eligible to get up to $50,000 back from the state to cover SPSL expenses.

For more information on how the law operates, please see our previous release

A refresher for covered employers

NOTE: The SPSL extension does not increase the amount of leave permitted under the law. Employees who already exhausted available SPSL are not entitled to additional leave and must use available time off like paid sick leave if they need additional time off for a reason otherwise covered under SPSL.

Major changes

A number of exceptions apply, among those certain financial institutions. Employers should consult the law itself and an attorney to determine if they are qualified, and should also be prepared to submit certain corporate documents with their application.

California normally provides more clarity on implementation in the weeks after updating a law like this, and the text of the law itself promises a marketing campaign in the near future on the small business grants program. For those who remember when PPP ran out, employers should post haste to see if they are eligible to apply for those grants.


Copyright ©2025 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 278