The CalSavers Retirement Savings Program (CalSavers) was established to assist the estimated 7.5 million California employees without employer retirement savings plans. Mandatory compliance is phased-in over time and depends on the size of the employer. The current phase requires all California employers with 51 to 100 employees to register with CalSavers or certify that they are exempt by June 30, 2021. More specifically, employers without employer-sponsored retirement plans must register to begin offering the state-mandated employer retirement plan to their employees. Those employers offering retirement plans to their employees need only certify that they are exempt. The link to the CalSavers website to register or certify as exempt is here.
The deadline for employers with more than 100 employees was September 30, 2020. Those employers who missed this deadline should register as soon as possible.
Smaller employers with 5 to 50 employees must register by June 30, 2022. Regardless of their applicable registration deadline, however, the state encourages eligible employers of any size to register at any time; indeed, registration has been possible since July of 2019.
An employee’s CalSavers account is a Roth IRA, which contributes sums earned after tax withholdings. The default savings rate is 5% of an employee’s gross pay and employees can change that rate at any time. Once an employer registers for CalSavers, its employees will be auto-enrolled after 30 days and will begin saving through payroll contributions unless they opt out. An employee can opt out or back into the program at any time. An employee’s CalSavers account is portable and will belong to the employee even if he or she changes jobs. California employers are not required to make contributions to the retirement account.
Penalties per eligible employee apply for failure to comply without good cause. Within 90 days of a non-compliance notice, eligible employers failing to allow eligible employees to participate in CalSavers are subject to a penalty of $250 per eligible employee, and if found to be in non-compliance 180 days or more after the notice, an additional penalty of $500 per eligible employee applies.
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Joanne Warriner.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters, but rather as general commentary on the subject discussed. Your questions and comments are always welcome. Articles may be reprinted with permission. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. For information concerning this or other publications of the firm, or to advise us of an address change, please send your request to info@ecjlaw.com.
- Partner
Kelly Scott is a partner and head of the firm’s Employment Law Department.
Mr. Scott is also a member of the Litigation Department and has practiced law since 1987. His areas of practice include representation of employers in all ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- “Prejudice” No Longer an Element to Determine Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Minimum Wage Increases for 2025 | By: Kelly O. Scott
- New Law Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Possessing a Driver's License | By: Tanner Hosfield
- LA City Council Approves $30 Minimum Wage for Hotel and LAX Workers | By: Pooja Nair
- New Law Mandates That Employees Can No Longer Be Required to Use Vacation Before Receiving Paid Family Leave Benefits | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Employer Alert: New Whistleblower Poster Required | By: Joanne Warriner
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014