AB 701 California Warehouse Quota Law: Disclosures and Enforcement

California’s AB 701, the state’s warehouse quota law, limits how large warehouse employers can set and enforce productivity quotas. It took effect on January 1, 2022. Covered employers must disclose every quota in writing, cannot use quotas that force workers to skip meal breaks, rest periods, bathroom trips, or safety rules, and cannot retaliate against workers who ask questions or file complaints. Workers can request their own speed data, sue for injunctive relief, and recover attorney’s fees if they win.

Which Warehouses Are Covered

The law applies to a warehouse distribution center in California where the employer directly or indirectly controls at least 100 employees at one location, or 1,000 or more employees across all its California warehouse locations combined.¹ Workers supplied by staffing agencies count toward those totals when the warehouse controls their wages, hours, or working conditions.

Covered facilities fall under four NAICS categories: General Warehousing and Storage, Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers, and Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses. Farm product warehousing and storage is excluded.¹ Protections run to non-exempt employees, meaning the hourly floor workers rather than salaried managers.

What Counts as a Quota

A quota under the law is any work standard that assigns a worker a specific pace, a set number of tasks, or a set amount of material to handle within a defined time, where falling short can trigger discipline or another negative consequence.² The consequences are the trigger. A general performance goal with no disciplinary edge is not a quota for these purposes.

What the Employer Must Give You in Writing

Every covered employer must give each worker a written description of every quota that applies to them, and new hires must receive it at the time of hire.³ The document has to spell out:

The number of tasks to complete or the amount of material to produce or handle.
The time period in which the standard must be met.
Any disciplinary action or other negative consequence for missing it.

You should never be measured against a standard you were not told about. If the employer changes a quota, it owes you an updated written notice. Algorithmically adjusted quotas that shift week to week still require written disclosure each time the standard changes.

Quotas That Are Illegal Even If Disclosed

Disclosure alone does not make a quota lawful. A quota is prohibited if meeting it would require the worker to skip a meal or rest period, rush through bathroom breaks (including reasonable travel time to and from the restroom), or violate any occupational health and safety standard.² An employer cannot take adverse action against a worker for missing a quota that falls into these categories, or for missing one that was never properly disclosed.¹

Warehouse productivity systems often track pace continuously, and the clock keeps running during restroom trips. If the math makes it impossible to hit the number and still take legally required breaks, the quota is illegal no matter how well it’s documented.

How to Request Your Quota and Speed Data

A current or former employee who believes a quota interfered with meal breaks, rest periods, or safety can ask the employer for two things: a written description of every quota that applied to them, and a copy of their personal work-speed data for the most recent 90 days. A union or other representative can make the request on the worker’s behalf.¹

Once the employer gets a written request, it has 21 calendar days to hand over the records. If it does not, the worker can file a wage claim and the employer faces a $750 penalty under Labor Code Section 1198.5.¹ Getting this data is usually the first step in showing that a quota was unlawful, so the 21-day window matters.

Retaliation and the 90-Day Presumption

If the employer takes any adverse action against a worker within 90 days of the worker requesting quota data, filing a complaint, or otherwise exercising rights under the law, there is a rebuttable presumption that the action was retaliation.⁴ The employer then has to prove the discipline or termination was for a legitimate reason unrelated to the complaint. Without convincing evidence of an independent reason, the employer loses.

That flips the burden of proof that normally makes retaliation claims hard to win. A worker fired shortly after requesting speed data does not have to prove the firing was punishment. The employer has to prove it was not.

How to Enforce the Law

There are two routes. A worker can file a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, which investigates labor law violations.⁵ A current or former employee can also file a private lawsuit for injunctive relief to force the employer to comply with the disclosure, quota, and anti-retaliation provisions, and a worker who prevails can recover court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.² The fee-shifting provision makes private enforcement realistic for workers who could not otherwise afford a lawyer.

1
Department of Industrial Relations. Frequently Asked Questions on Warehouse Quotas (Assembly Bill 701)
2
California Legislative Information. California Code LAB – Warehouse Distribution Centers
3
California Legislative Information. California Labor Code 2101
4
LegiScan. California Assembly Bill 701 – Warehouse Distribution Centers
5
Department of Industrial Relations. Report a Labor Law Violation