SB 1162: Do we report pay data if headcount drops below 100?
Short answer
Most likely yes, if the employer had 100 or more employees for a meaningful portion of the reporting year, even if it later dropped below 100 before filing. Under California’s pay data reporting regime as expanded by S.B. 1162, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2022), CRD’s current guidance says a private employer must file if it had 100 or more employees either during the chosen snapshot period or on a regular basis during the reporting year, so an employer that was at or above 100 for roughly eight months will usually be treated as covered.[1][2][3][4]
Governing rule
The statute requires a private employer with 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report covering the prior calendar year, and it uses a single pay period between October 1 and December 31 as the “snapshot” for identifying which employees are included in the report.[1][4]
CRD’s 2025 Handbook and FAQ add the key threshold interpretation:
An employer has 100 or more employees if either of the following is true:
CRD further explains that “regular basis” means a recurring need, even if not constant, and that seasonal employers can qualify if they reach 100 employees during a recurring part of the year.[3]
How that applies to your fact pattern
If the employer had 100 employees for eight months, then dropped below 100
That fact pattern likely triggers reporting.[2][3]
Why:
- Eight months is not a brief or isolated fluctuation.
- CRD’s guidance focuses on whether the employer had 100 employees on a regular basis during the reporting year, not whether it still had 100 employees on the filing date.[2][3]
- The report covers the prior calendar year, so the relevant inquiry is the employer’s headcount during that reporting year and during the selected snapshot period, not only its current headcount when the report is due.[1][2][4]
If the employer only hit 100 once, briefly, and not during the snapshot period
In that scenario:
- If the employer had 100 or more employees during the selected snapshot pay period between October 1 and December 31, the safer reading is that a filing is required.[1][2][4]
- If the employer did not have 100 during the snapshot period and the 100-employee level was only a one-time, nonrecurring spike, CRD’s “regular basis” guidance suggests the employer may have a better argument that it was not covered.[2][3]
So the answer turns on how long, how consistently, and when the employer had 100 employees.
Practical decision matrix
| Scenario | Likely filing obligation? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Employer had 100+ employees during the chosen Oct. 1-Dec. 31 snapshot period | Yes | The statute uses the snapshot to determine who is counted for reporting.[1][4] |
| Employer had 100+ employees for about 8 months of the reporting year, even if later below 100 | Likely yes | CRD says coverage exists if the employer had 100+ employees on a regular basis during the reporting year.[2][3] |
| Employer briefly touched 100 once, outside the snapshot period, with no recurring need | Unclear / possibly no | CRD’s “regular basis” standard suggests a one-off spike may not suffice.[2][3] |
| Seasonal employer predictably reaches 100+ each year | Yes | CRD treats recurring seasonal need as “regular basis.”[3] |
Additional points that matter
- The rule applies to private employers, and there must be at least one California employee for the payroll employee report obligation described in CRD’s guidance.[2][3]
- In counting toward the 100-employee threshold, CRD says employers count California and non-California employees, including employees on paid or unpaid leave who otherwise work regularly or would be working during the snapshot period.[2][3]
- The actual data reported for payroll employee reports are generally limited to California employees.[2][3]
- If the employer had 100 or more labor contractor employees, that can trigger a separate labor-contractor pay data report.[1][2][4]
Bottom line
If the employer was at 100 employees for eight months within the reporting year, the safest and most likely correct answer is yes, a California pay data report is required, assuming it is a covered private employer and has at least one California employee.[2][3] If instead the employer merely hit 100 briefly and only once, the answer depends on whether that occurred during the employer’s selected snapshot period and whether the 100-employee level was maintained on a regular basis during the year.[1][2][3][4]
If you want, I can turn this into a one-paragraph client-ready email answer or a checklist for determining whether your company crossed the SB 1162 threshold.