Updates to The Los Angeles Hotel Worker Health Care Ordinance and Why it Will Cost Employers More

If you manage a hotel in the City of Los Angeles, a change to the Hotel Worker ordinance is about to change how you think about health benefits for your workforce.

Ordinance No. 188944 takes effect June 29, 2026, and it carries a requirement that catches many hotel operators off guard: if you are not actually providing qualifying health benefits to a hotel worker, you owe that worker an additional $4.25 per hour as a wage supplement. This is not a benefits question. It is a wage obligation.

Here is where this gets complicated for hotels. Part-time workers are a staple of hotel operations — front desk coverage, banquet and catering staff, housekeeping fill-ins, and on-call employees who may work regularly but never clear the eligibility threshold for your group health plan. Under the ACA, you may have no obligation to offer those workers coverage at all. Under this ordinance, that analysis does not end your inquiry. If the worker is a “Hotel Worker” under the ordinance and you are not spending at least $4.25 per hour toward qualifying health benefits on their behalf, the shortfall must be paid as wages.

The ordinance frames this as a spending floor, not a value test. The question is not whether your plan is actuarially equivalent to some benchmark. The question is what you are actually spending per non-overtime hour worked on qualifying benefits — health, dental, vision, and mental health coverage count; life insurance, AD&D, and disability do not. If that per-hour number falls below $4.25, the difference goes on the paycheck and will impact the regular rate of pay.

The ordinance also does not carve out a clean exception for workers who waive coverage or who simply are not eligible under your plan’s terms. If you are not providing the required health benefit to a given worker for any reason, including their part-time status, the default rule appears to require either the cash equivalent or an individually documented waiver. 

For context, the LAX airport worker provisions have operated on this same model for years, and the compliance benchmark that emerged there is straightforward: calculate your total employer cost for qualifying health benefits and divide by total non-overtime hours worked. If you can demonstrate that the per-hour spend meets or exceeds the required rate, you are compliant. If not, the gap is owed as wages.

The rate is $4.25 per hour starting July 1, 2026. It increases to $6.00 on July 1, 2027, and from July 1, 2028 forward, it will be pegged to whatever the LAX airport worker rate is at that time — currently projected above $8.35.

The practical implication for HR is this: run the analysis now, before the ordinance takes effect. Pull your part-time hotel worker population, identify who is and is not receiving qualifying health benefits, and calculate your per-hour spend for those who are enrolled. Any worker who falls through the gap — because they are part-time, because they waived, because they do not meet your plan’s eligibility threshold — represents a potential wage liability under this ordinance unless you are paying the cash equivalent or have a compliant individual waiver on file.

test

Proof of benefit expenditures must be maintained and made available to the City’s Office of Wage Standards upon request. This is an area where documentation practices will matter as much as the underlying compliance.

If you have questions about how this ordinance applies to your specific workforce structure, now is the time to get ahead of it.

If you manage a hotel in the City of Los Angeles, a change to the Hotel Worker ordinance is about to change how you think about health benefits for your workforce.

Ordinance No. 188944 takes effect June 29, 2026, and it carries a requirement that catches many hotel operators off guard: if you are not actually providing qualifying health benefits to a hotel worker, you owe that worker an additional $4.25 per hour as a wage supplement. This is not a benefits question. It is a wage obligation.

Here is where this gets complicated for hotels. Part-time workers are a staple of hotel operations — front desk coverage, banquet and catering staff, housekeeping fill-ins, and on-call employees who may work regularly but never clear the eligibility threshold for your group health plan. Under the ACA, you may have no obligation to offer those workers coverage at all. Under this ordinance, that analysis does not end your inquiry. If the worker is a “Hotel Worker” under the ordinance and you are not spending at least $4.25 per hour toward qualifying health benefits on their behalf, the shortfall must be paid as wages.

The ordinance frames this as a spending floor, not a value test. The question is not whether your plan is actuarially equivalent to some benchmark. The question is what you are actually spending per non-overtime hour worked on qualifying benefits — health, dental, vision, and mental health coverage count; life insurance, AD&D, and disability do not. If that per-hour number falls below $4.25, the difference goes on the paycheck and will impact the regular rate of pay.

The ordinance also does not carve out a clean exception for workers who waive coverage or who simply are not eligible under your plan’s terms. If you are not providing the required health benefit to a given worker for any reason, including their part-time status, the default rule appears to require either the cash equivalent or an individually documented waiver. 

For context, the LAX airport worker provisions have operated on this same model for years, and the compliance benchmark that emerged there is straightforward: calculate your total employer cost for qualifying health benefits and divide by total non-overtime hours worked. If you can demonstrate that the per-hour spend meets or exceeds the required rate, you are compliant. If not, the gap is owed as wages.

The rate is $4.25 per hour starting July 1, 2026. It increases to $6.00 on July 1, 2027, and from July 1, 2028 forward, it will be pegged to whatever the LAX airport worker rate is at that time — currently projected above $8.35.

The practical implication for HR is this: run the analysis now, before the ordinance takes effect. Pull your part-time hotel worker population, identify who is and is not receiving qualifying health benefits, and calculate your per-hour spend for those who are enrolled. Any worker who falls through the gap — because they are part-time, because they waived, because they do not meet your plan’s eligibility threshold — represents a potential wage liability under this ordinance unless you are paying the cash equivalent or have a compliant individual waiver on file.

test

Proof of benefit expenditures must be maintained and made available to the City’s Office of Wage Standards upon request. This is an area where documentation practices will matter as much as the underlying compliance.

If you have questions about how this ordinance applies to your specific workforce structure, now is the time to get ahead of it.

If you manage a hotel in the City of Los Angeles, a change to the Hotel Worker ordinance is about to change how you think about health benefits for your workforce.

Ordinance No. 188944 takes effect June 29, 2026, and it carries a requirement that catches many hotel operators off guard: if you are not actually providing qualifying health benefits to a hotel worker, you owe that worker an additional $4.25 per hour as a wage supplement. This is not a benefits question. It is a wage obligation.

Here is where this gets complicated for hotels. Part-time workers are a staple of hotel operations — front desk coverage, banquet and catering staff, housekeeping fill-ins, and on-call employees who may work regularly but never clear the eligibility threshold for your group health plan. Under the ACA, you may have no obligation to offer those workers coverage at all. Under this ordinance, that analysis does not end your inquiry. If the worker is a “Hotel Worker” under the ordinance and you are not spending at least $4.25 per hour toward qualifying health benefits on their behalf, the shortfall must be paid as wages.

The ordinance frames this as a spending floor, not a value test. The question is not whether your plan is actuarially equivalent to some benchmark. The question is what you are actually spending per non-overtime hour worked on qualifying benefits — health, dental, vision, and mental health coverage count; life insurance, AD&D, and disability do not. If that per-hour number falls below $4.25, the difference goes on the paycheck and will impact the regular rate of pay.

The ordinance also does not carve out a clean exception for workers who waive coverage or who simply are not eligible under your plan’s terms. If you are not providing the required health benefit to a given worker for any reason, including their part-time status, the default rule appears to require either the cash equivalent or an individually documented waiver. 

For context, the LAX airport worker provisions have operated on this same model for years, and the compliance benchmark that emerged there is straightforward: calculate your total employer cost for qualifying health benefits and divide by total non-overtime hours worked. If you can demonstrate that the per-hour spend meets or exceeds the required rate, you are compliant. If not, the gap is owed as wages.

The rate is $4.25 per hour starting July 1, 2026. It increases to $6.00 on July 1, 2027, and from July 1, 2028 forward, it will be pegged to whatever the LAX airport worker rate is at that time — currently projected above $8.35.

The practical implication for HR is this: run the analysis now, before the ordinance takes effect. Pull your part-time hotel worker population, identify who is and is not receiving qualifying health benefits, and calculate your per-hour spend for those who are enrolled. Any worker who falls through the gap — because they are part-time, because they waived, because they do not meet your plan’s eligibility threshold — represents a potential wage liability under this ordinance unless you are paying the cash equivalent or have a compliant individual waiver on file.

test

Proof of benefit expenditures must be maintained and made available to the City’s Office of Wage Standards upon request. This is an area where documentation practices will matter as much as the underlying compliance.

If you have questions about how this ordinance applies to your specific workforce structure, now is the time to get ahead of it.

Scroll to Top