Employers can choose from three different methods to calculate how to compensate employees who take PSL. No matter which method employers choose, they must pay employees no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period after the sick leave was taken.1
Employers can use any one of the following three methods:
For information on how the “regular rate of pay” is traditionally defined, see “Regular Rate of Pay Defined” in Calculating Overtime. For information on whether you have to pay an employee for sick leave when they leave employment, see Employee Leaves Employment and Reinstatement.
According to the Labor Commissioner, if you incorporate PSL into a PTO plan you can compensate employees who take PTO for vacation or personal reasons at a “base rate” of pay, whereas time taken as PSL must be paid at the higher “regular rate of pay” described above.
The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) issued an opinion letter regarding calculation of paid sick leave for employees who are paid by commissions and exempt employees who are given an annual, non-discretionary bonus.2
The opinion letter states that employees who are paid by commission must be paid according to options (1) or (2) above — the regular rate of pay or the 90-day look back.
The DLSE also took the position that this applies even if these employees are exempt under the inside sales or outside sales exemption and that the third method of calculation applies only to employees exempt under the professional, executive or administrative exemptions — the so-called white-collar exemptions.
The opinion letter further addresses how to calculate payment of paid sick leave for an exempt employee (executive, administrative and professional exemption) who receives a non-discretionary bonus. The opinion letter states that the non-discretionary bonus is not factored into the payment of paid sick leave. Instead, the employee “would be paid for an amount of pay which equals his or her regular salary for the sick day.”
1. Lab. Code sec. 246(l)
2. DLSE Opinion Letter, 2016.10.11
3. Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. D084304, 2025 WL 2205862 (Aug. 4, 2025)