Pennsylvania Employee Handbook Requirements (2026)

Pennsylvania has no statewide paid sick leave law. But if you have employees in Philadelphia, the city's Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance fills that gap, and it got significantly stronger in May 2025.

The basics: employers with 10 or more employees must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year, accrued at one hour per 40 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 10 employees must offer unpaid sick leave. Sounds straightforward enough. The complications start when you look at the details.

The POWER Act (passed May 2025) made three changes that turned this from a "soft" ordinance into something with real enforcement teeth:

• Liquidated damages cap removed. Previously, the city could only award limited damages. Now there is no ceiling on what an employer owes for violations.
• "Bad actors" database. Employers found in violation get listed in a publicly searchable database maintained by the city. That is a reputational hit that goes beyond any dollar amount.
• Expanded anti-retaliation protections. The definition of retaliation was broadened to cover scheduling changes, hour reductions, and other subtle forms of pushback against employees who use sick time.

The most common mistake employers make is treating Philadelphia sick leave like a PTO bank. It is not. Employees can use it for their own illness, a family member's care, public health emergencies, or if the employee or a family member is a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault. Requiring a doctor's note for absences under three days is prohibited.

The fix: If you have any employees working in Philadelphia, even partially, audit your sick leave policy against the current ordinance. Track accrual separately from general PTO. Train managers that requiring documentation for short absences violates city law.

Sources: Philadelphia Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance; POWER Act amendments (May 2025); Philadelphia Code Chapter 9-4100.

The Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL, 43 P.S. 260.1 et seq.) is one of Pennsylvania's strictest employment statutes. It governs how and when employers can deduct money from employee wages, and the rules are far tighter than most employers realize.

Here is what the WPCL actually allows employers to deduct without specific written authorization:

• Federal, state, and local taxes
• Contributions required by law (Social Security, Medicare)
• Court-ordered garnishments

That is essentially it. Everything else, including uniform costs, tool charges, cash register shortages, damaged equipment, and even voluntary benefit contributions, requires specific, signed written authorization from the employee. A general "I authorize deductions" clause in an employment agreement does not meet the standard. The authorization must identify each deduction type and amount.

The penalty for getting this wrong is automatic: 25% liquidated damages on top of the wages owed, plus reasonable attorney's fees. In Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class action over improper deductions resulted in a $1.26 million judgment. The employer had been deducting for uniform maintenance without proper individual authorization.

Final pay timing adds another layer. The WPCL requires all earned wages to be paid by the next regular payday after separation. Miss that deadline and the 25% liquidated damages attach to the full amount owed. For a terminated employee earning $75,000 who is owed two weeks of pay plus accrued vacation, the penalty alone can exceed $1,400 before attorney's fees.

The fix: Audit every payroll deduction currently in place. Get individual signed authorizations for each non-statutory deduction. Build a final pay checklist that triggers on the separation date and targets the next regular payday. Never rely on a blanket authorization clause.

Sources: 43 P.S. 260.1 et seq. (WPCL); Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ($1.26M judgment); 43 P.S. 260.10 (liquidated damages provision).

Pennsylvania's child labor laws (43 P.S. 41-71) have always been strict. What changed in 2023-2024 is enforcement intensity. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry processed 940 complaints and cited 347 employers for child labor violations, collecting approximately $2.5 million in fines over a two-year period.

The rules that trip up employers most often:

• Work permits. Pennsylvania requires an employment certificate (work permit) for all minors under 18. The employer must have the permit on file before the minor starts work. Many employers let minors begin working while the permit is "in process."
• Hour restrictions for 14-15 year olds. No more than 3 hours on a school day, 8 hours on a non-school day, and 18 hours in a school week. During non-school weeks, the limit rises to 40 hours.
• Hour restrictions for 16-17 year olds. No more than 8 hours per day, 28 hours per school week, and 44 hours per non-school week. They cannot work before 6 a.m. or after midnight.
• Break requirements. Minors must receive a 30-minute break after 5 consecutive hours of work. This applies even when adult employees in the same workplace are not entitled to a mandatory break.
• Prohibited occupations. The list of hazardous occupations for minors in Pennsylvania is longer than the federal list and includes operating power-driven machinery, working in construction, and handling certain chemicals.

The legislative trend is toward even stiffer penalties. HB 118, currently moving through the Pennsylvania legislature, would double the maximum penalty per violation. Restaurants, retail stores, and seasonal businesses are the most frequently cited industries.

The fix: Verify work permits are on file before a minor's first shift, not after. Build a scheduling system that automatically flags hour-limit violations for minor employees. Post the required summary of child labor laws in a conspicuous location. If you operate in food service or retail, assume you will be audited.

Sources: 43 P.S. 41-71 (Child Labor Act); Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry enforcement data (2023-2024); HB 118 (penalty doubling bill); PA DLI Child Labor resources.

Pennsylvania's Whistleblower Law (43 P.S. 1421-1428) sounds broad on paper. It protects employees from retaliation when they report wrongdoing or waste by their employer. The catch: it primarily covers public-sector employees and employees of entities that receive appropriations from federal, state, or local governments.

This creates a confusing patchwork for private employers. If your company has a government contract, receives a government grant, or participates in a government-funded program, your employees are likely covered. If not, the state whistleblower statute probably does not apply to you directly.

But here is where employers get tripped up: the absence of state whistleblower coverage does not mean private-sector employees have no protections. Several overlapping frameworks fill the gap:

• Federal whistleblower statutes (Sarbanes-Oxley for public companies, Dodd-Frank for financial reporting, OSHA Section 11(c) for safety complaints) apply regardless of state law.
• Pennsylvania common law recognizes wrongful discharge claims when a termination violates a clear mandate of public policy. Firing someone for reporting illegal activity, even without a specific statute, can support a common-law claim.
• The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act provides anti-retaliation protections for employees who file discrimination complaints.

The practical risk for employers: assuming "Pennsylvania's whistleblower law doesn't apply to us" means whistleblower protections don't exist. Employees who report safety violations, financial fraud, or discrimination are protected through one channel or another, and terminating them creates litigation exposure regardless of whether 43 P.S. 1421 technically covers your company.

The fix: Include a general anti-retaliation policy in your handbook that covers all forms of good-faith reporting. Do not limit it to the state whistleblower statute. Train managers that retaliation risk exists for any report of illegal or unsafe activity, regardless of the employee's coverage under a specific law.

Sources: 43 P.S. 1421-1428 (PA Whistleblower Law); Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 806 (18 U.S.C. 1514A); OSHA Section 11(c); Pennsylvania common law wrongful discharge doctrine.

The Pennsylvania Equal Pay Law (43 P.S. 336.1 et seq.) prohibits employers from paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility performed under similar working conditions. That sounds a lot like the federal Equal Pay Act. The differences are in the defenses, and they favor employees.

Under the federal EPA, employers can justify pay differences based on four affirmative defenses: a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or "any factor other than sex." That fourth catch-all is broad enough to cover market rate adjustments, geographic differentials, and negotiation outcomes.

Under Pennsylvania's law, the defenses are narrower:

• A seniority system
• A merit increase system
• A system based on quality or quantity of production

Notice what is missing: there is no "any factor other than sex" catch-all. That means defenses like "the male candidate negotiated harder" or "we matched his previous salary" do not have a clean statutory safe harbor under Pennsylvania law the way they do under federal law. Employers relying exclusively on federal EPA defenses may find those arguments insufficient in a Pennsylvania state court claim.

The law also does not require employees to prove the pay gap was intentional. A pattern of paying men more than women for the same work creates liability even if the employer had no discriminatory motive. The burden shifts to the employer to justify the difference under one of the three permitted defenses.

The fix: Run a pay equity audit that tests compensation data against all three Pennsylvania defenses, not just federal ones. If pay differences exist between men and women in substantially similar roles, make sure you can tie those differences to seniority, documented merit, or measurable production metrics. "Market rate" alone is not enough under PA law.

Sources: 43 P.S. 336.1 et seq. (PA Equal Pay Law); 29 U.S.C. 206(d) (federal Equal Pay Act); 43 P.S. 336.3 (permitted defenses).