Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this article: (a) “Wages” includes all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.

(b)“Labor” includes labor, work, or service whether rendered or performed under contract, subcontract, partnership, station plan, or other agreement if the labor to be paid for is performed personally by the person demanding payment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987). · cites it 2× “" Cal. Lab. Code Ann. § 200(a) (West 1971).”
Baltimore Harbor Charters, Ltd. v. Ayd, 780 A.2d 303 (Md. 2001). · cites it 3× “Like the Maryland Wage Act, California does not define the term “employee” in its statute, and it defines the term “wages” as “all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece,…”
Swafford v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “As an initial matter, IBM does not challenge, nor do the parties discuss the underlying California Labor Code §§ 200, 201, 202, 204 violations.”
Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “; 26 (2) failure to provide overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1194, 1198; 27 (3) waiting time penalties in violation of California Labor Code § 200 et seq.”
Bijon Hill v. Walmart Inc., 32 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 200 (a) (emphasis added) (applying this definition to “this article,” meaning Cal.”
Takacs v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2006). · cites it 3× “Defendant states that “[b]y law, an employer may contract to pay an employee any wage, computed in any fashion, so long as basic provisions are satisfied.”
Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiffs, representing a class of such employees, sued Cintas for violations of the living wage ordinance, Labor Code section 200 et seq., Business and Professions Code section 17200 and breach of contract.”
Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 3× “As the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) explained in an opinion letter, the “wages of the employee” should “include all of the wages — the base rate, the piece rate, the commission and any bonus.”
Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 466 P.3d 325 (Cal. 2020). “opn., ante, at p. 19.) Employers may legally compensate their employees on any number of bases, including “by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.”
Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002). “1999) (construing California Labor Code § 200(a)). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim.”
Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “” (Lab. Code, § 200, subd. (a).) The bonuses paid to three or four of Covenant Care’s marketing directors were based on an increase in the number of patients at the facility or an increase in growth at the facility.”
Cleveland v. Groceryworks.com, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “Groceryworks moves for summary judgment on the following claims: Claim 1, that Groceryworks failed to compensate Cleveland for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code sections 200, 226, 500, 510, 1197, and 1198; Claim 2, that Groceryworks failed to provide…”
Show all 124 citing cases →
— Cal. Labor Code § 200(a) — 10 cases
Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987). “" Cal. Lab. Code Ann. § 200(a) (West 1971).”
Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002). “1999) (construing California Labor Code § 200(a)). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim.”
Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “As the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) explained in an opinion letter, the “wages of the employee” should “include all of the wages — the base rate, the piece rate, the commission and any bonus.”
Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 873 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
Battista v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 195 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.