(a)In addition to, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in this article, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee as provided in Sections 201.3, 204, 204b, 204.1, 204.2, 204.11, 205, 205.5, and 1197.5, shall be subject to a penalty as follows:
(1)For any initial violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each failure to pay each employee.
(2)For each subsequent violation, or
any willful or intentional violation, two hundred dollars ($200) for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully withheld.
(b)The penalty shall either be recovered by the employee as a statutory penalty pursuant to Section 98 or by the Labor Commissioner as a civil penalty through the issuance of a citation or pursuant to Section 98.3. The procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations issued by the Labor Commissioner under this section shall be the same as those set forth in subdivisions (b) through (k), inclusive, of Section 1197.1.
(c)An employee is only entitled to either recover the statutory penalty provided for in this section or to enforce a civil penalty as set forth in subdivision (a) of
Section 2699, but not both, for the same violation.
Notes of Decisions
Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9988 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“, Lab. Code, § 210 [authorizing Labor Commissioner 2 to recover civil penalties as part of a hearing or civil action to recover unpaid wages and penalties for violations of Lab.”
Andrade v. Arby's Restaurant Grp., Inc., 225 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
“Claim 10: Andrade Is Not Entitled to Civil Penalties Under Cal, Labor Code § 210. California Labor Code § 204(a) requires employers to pay employees on a bimonthly basis on a designated payday.”
Garnett v. ADT LLC, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 4× “) Plaintiff relies principally on Amaral v. Cintas Corp., a California Court of Appeal case that rejected a purely temporal understanding of the term “subsequent” and interpreted its use in California Labor Code sections 210 and 225.”
Thomas v. Home Depot USA Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“, Cal. Lab.Code § 210 (authorizing recovery of civil penalties for unpaid wages).”
Garnett v. ADT LLC, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
“, Cal. Labor Code § 210 ; Caliber Bodyworks, 134 Cal.”
Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
“1 for failure to pay class members minimum required wages; 22 (5) statutory penalties under California Labor Code § 203 for failure to pay class members all wages earned within thirty days of the date their employment ended; 23 (6) statutory penalties under California Labor Code…”
Brian Bagwell v. CBS Broad. Inc (C.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 5× “12 Additionally, any action under California Labor Code Section 210 must be brought “in the name of the people of the State of California and the Labor Commissioner.”
Chang v. Cashman (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Penalties under California Labor Code § 210 3 California Labor Code § 210 provides that: 4 (a) In addition to, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in this article, every person who fails to pay the 5 wages of each employee as provided in Sections…”
Cabardo v. Patacsil (E.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Civil Penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 210 18 Civil penalties are imposed under Cal.”
Bunkley v. Cole Haan, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment (Claim 6) 10 Defendant also argues that claim 6 of plaintiff’s SAC must be dismissed because: (1) 11 there is no private right of action under California Labor Code § 204; (2) that even if pled 12 correctly as a claim for penalties…”
Leander v. Accent Controls, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Penalties Under Labor Code § 210 2 Labor Code § 210 provides that any employer who fails to timely pay wages in 3 violation of the Labor Code’s provisions must pay a penalty of $100 for the initial 4 violation, plus $200 for each subsequent violation, plus 25 percent of the…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 210(a) — 2 cases
Garnett v. ADT LLC, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
“) Plaintiff relies principally on Amaral v. Cintas Corp., a California Court of Appeal case that rejected a purely temporal understanding of the term “subsequent” and interpreted its use in California Labor Code sections 210 and 225.”
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.