Cal. Codes » Labor Code / DIVISION 2. EMPLOYMENT REGULATION AND SUPERVISION / PART 1. COMPENSATION / CHAPTER 1. Payment of Wages / ARTICLE 1. General Occupations
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 203 (2026)

General Occupations

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

(a)If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents themselves to avoid payment to them, or who refuses to receive the payment when fully tendered to them, including any penalty then accrued under this section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during which the employee so avoids payment.

(b)Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 526 cases (280 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 12× “Kriegler additionally calculated waiting time penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 203 for terminated employees only.”
Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “610 (4) when it failed to remit the paycheck deductions to OTET for payment of Barr’s health insurance premiums.”
Diaz v. Grill Concepts Servs., Inc., 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 524 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 6× “( Lab. Code, §§ 203, subd. (a), 1194, subd.”
Ming-Hsiang Kao v. Joy Holiday, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 4× “Code, § 226 ) and timely payment of wages upon his termination (Lab. Code, § 203 ). Defendants maintained that defendant was not an employee while awaiting his H-1B visa and, thereafter, an administrative employee receiving a sufficient salary to be exempt from minimum wage and…”
Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 5× “2005) (holding that claims for violations of state wage and hours laws, including California Labor Code §§ 203 and 226.7, and violation of IWC Wage Order 5-2001 arose under state law and were not preempted).”
Bijon Hill v. Walmart Inc., 32 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “WALMART SUMMARY ** California Employment Law The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Walmart in a diversity action brought by a plaintiff who alleged that Walmart owed her penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 because it failed to pay her…”
Arias v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 923 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “) [1] of penalties provided for in the Labor Code (Lab. Code, §§ 203, 226). The eleventh cause of action alleged, under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab.”
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §203 (West 1989). In her DLSE claim form, Livadas made plain that she did not dispute Safeway’s calculation of the wages owed, but sought only the penalty for the employer’s late tender.”
Andrade v. Arby's Restaurant Grp., Inc., 225 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 3× “Violations of Cal. Labor Code § 203 for Waiting Time Penalties Penalties accrue for purposes of Cal.”
Rodney Gregory, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Scie, Llc, Dba Epsg Mgmt. Servs., Lp, 317 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “1 The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on the ground that four of Gregory's causes of action are preempted by 301; it remanded a fifth cause of action for continuing wages under California Labor Code Section 203 to the Superior Court.”
Villacres v. Abm Indus. Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “allegations set forth in the Action, including those set forth in the First Amended Complaint, related to pay for all time allegedly worked but not compensated, including, but not limited to, `off-the-clock' work, overtime, split shift premiums, any alleged failure to make wage…”
Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007). “any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.”
Show all 526 citing cases →
Cal. Labor Code § 203(a): 26 cases
Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2014). “2005) (holding that claims for violations of state wage and hours laws, including California Labor Code §§ 203 and 226.7, and violation of IWC Wage Order 5-2001 arose under state law and were not preempted).”
Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
Bijon Hill v. Walmart Inc., 32 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2022). “WALMART SUMMARY ** California Employment Law The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Walmart in a diversity action brought by a plaintiff who alleged that Walmart owed her penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 because it failed to pay her…”
Willner v. Manpower Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
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.