A California employer can’t make a job applicant or employee pay for a physical it requires. Labor Code section 222.5 bars requiring any “prospective employee or applicant for employment to pay, any fee for, or cost of, any pre-employment medical or physical examination taken as a condition of employment.” The rule also covers exams that a government law or regulation requires, such as commercial driver physicals. Because one hiring practice applies to every new hire, the exposure grows fast.
What does section 222.5 cover?
Two kinds of exams. The statute first covers “any pre-employment medical or physical examination taken as a condition of employment.” It then covers “medical or physical examinations required by any law or regulation of federal, state or local governments or agencies thereof.”
The second clause matters most for regulated industries. A federally required driver physical, or an exam a state licensing rule demands, is still the employer’s cost if the employer requires it for the job. The statute bars both deducting the cost from pay and requiring the worker to pay it up front.
Does it matter that the worker is only an applicant?
No. Section 222.5 expressly reaches “any prospective employee or applicant for employment.” An employer can’t avoid it by having candidates get an exam before an offer and bring back the results.
Reimbursing the cost after hire, only for those who start, is risky. Applicants who paid and weren’t hired, or who quit before reimbursement, still paid for a required exam.
When can an employer require an exam at all?
After an offer, under FEHA. Government Code section 12940(e)(3) allows a medical exam “after an employment offer has been made but prior to the commencement of employment duties,” if it “is job related and consistent with business necessity and that all entering employees in the same job classification are subject to the same examination or inquiry.”
So the two rules work together. FEHA governs whether and when the exam can happen. Section 222.5 governs who pays. An exam required before any offer can raise a FEHA problem on its own, separate from the cost issue.
What exposure does a violation create?
PAGA claims, mainly. Labor Code section 2699.5(a) lists section 222.5 among the provisions subject to PAGA’s notice procedure. The statute carries no civil penalty of its own, so the PAGA default penalty applies.
Labor Code section 225 also says “The violation of any provision of Sections 221, 222, 222.5, or 223 is a misdemeanor.” Criminal enforcement is rare, but it’s a reminder that the Legislature treated the rule seriously.
Workers who paid also have a claim to recover the cost. The individual amounts are small. The class or PAGA total isn’t, especially in high-turnover industries where many applicants never start.
The firm covers related cost-shifting rules in a post on uniforms and work equipment.
Exam rules at a glance
| Issue | Rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Who pays for required pre-employment exam | Employer | Lab. Code 222.5 |
| Exams required by government law or regulation | Employer, if required for the job | Lab. Code 222.5 |
| When an exam can be required | After offer, job related, same for the classification | Gov. Code 12940(e)(3) |
| PAGA coverage | Listed provision | Lab. Code 2699.5(a) |
| Criminal exposure | Misdemeanor | Lab. Code 225 |
When a claim targets exam costs
- Preserve onboarding checklists, offer letters, vendor invoices for exams, and any reimbursement records, by hire date.
- Calendar the deadline on the PAGA notice, demand, or complaint, and check for an arbitration agreement and EPLI wage-and-hour coverage.
- Identify the recruiters and managers who told candidates how to get exams, and make sure no one treats the complaining worker differently.
- Pull a list of everyone hired or offered a job in the claim period and whether each paid for an exam.
- Talk to a lawyer before reimbursing past applicants, so the payments are documented and credited properly.
The firm’s page on hiring practice defense for California employers describes its work on PAGA and Labor Code claims.
Pre-employment exam questions from employers
Does this apply to drug tests?
Section 222.5 speaks of “medical or physical examination.” Drug tests are commonly collected at clinics as part of a pre-employment medical process, and treating them as covered is the safer course. Drug testing also has its own California rules.
What if the worker already has a valid certificate?
An employer can accept a valid existing certificate without requiring a new exam. The problem arises when the employer requires a new or specific exam and the worker pays for it.
Can we use a clinic that bills the worker’s insurance?
That shifts cost to the worker’s coverage, and copays or deductibles may still fall on the worker. Direct billing to the employer is the cleaner approach.
Is time spent at the exam paid?
For employees, time spent at an exam the employer requires is generally treated as hours worked. Applicant time before hire raises different questions. Check the facts with counsel.
If a PAGA notice cites pre-employment exam costs
If your company has received a PAGA notice or lawsuit claiming applicants or employees paid for required physicals, the onboarding records and any reimbursement history usually decide the size of the claim. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving hiring costs and onboarding practices. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Labor Code sections 222.5, 225, and 2699.5, and Government Code section 12940.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.