Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Iloff: A Berman Appeal Does Not Erase the Worker’s Paid-Sick-Leave Claim

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 25, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Iloff v. LaPaille, No. S275848 (Cal. Aug. 21, 2025).

An employer’s appeal from a Labor Commissioner award does not automatically remove paid-sick-leave claims from the dispute. In Iloff v. LaPaille, No. S275848 (Cal. Aug. 21, 2025), the California Supreme Court held that the superior court may hear the claim in the Berman appeal. The Court distinguished that full new trial from starting a private lawsuit directly in court. The distinction matters to workers responding to an appeal and employers deciding what the court proceeding can include. Iloff, opinion pages 17–29.

A Berman appeal starts a new trial, not review of an agency transcript

The Berman process begins with an employee’s compensation claim before the Labor Commissioner. Either party may appeal the resulting order, decision or award under section 98.2. The superior court tries the dispute de novo, without giving weight to the Commissioner’s determinations. That means an employee cannot rely on the administrative award alone as proof of the court claim. The Court explained that an employer’s appeal nullifies the administrative decision and requires the employee to pursue the claim in superior court. Iloff, opinion pages 18, 22.

The missing reference to section 98.2 did not exclude appeals

The lower appellate court reasoned that the Paid Sick Leave law listed section 98 but not section 98.2 among enforcement procedures. The Supreme Court read the list in context: Section 98 initiates the Berman process; section 98.2 supplies the appeal within it. The law also describes remedies as cumulative. The omission did not show an intent to let an employer extinguish an otherwise available claim simply by appealing. Iloff, opinion pages 19–23.

Additional related claims remain subject to the court’s discretion

Iloff had not raised the paid-sick-leave claim during the administrative stage. The Court applied the established rule permitting a trial court, in its sound discretion, to consider additional related claims in a Berman appeal. Relevant considerations include relatedness, judicial economy and employer prejudice. That is not permission to add any unrelated claim automatically or ignore the court’s procedures. Iloff, opinion pages 18–19, 24–25.

This holding did not create a direct private cause of action

Section 98.2 authorizes an appeal from an administrative ruling; it does not itself authorize an employee to sue directly in court for the same statutory relief. The Court rejected conflating those two routes. It reversed the contrary judgment and remanded, without adjudicating the amount recoverable on Iloff’s added claim. The opinion’s separate minimum-wage good-faith holding also does not decide the sick-leave merits. Iloff, opinion pages 25–29.

Prepare for the court proceeding, not just the original hearing

• Keep the Labor Commissioner claim, award and appeal papers together, but prepare the evidence needed for a new trial.
• Identify which claims were heard administratively and which additional related claims need the court’s permission.
• For a proposed added claim, explain its relationship to the original dispute and address scheduling, proof and possible prejudice.
• Keep the sick-leave claim, minimum-wage compensation and liquidated-damages issues separate; one favorable procedural holding does not prove all three.

Discussed in: Iloff v. LaPaille: California Minimum-Wage Good-Faith Defense; California Paid Sick Leave in 2026: Records, Requests, and Retaliation Warning Signs.