Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 216 (2026)

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

In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article, any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor, who:

(a)Having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made.

(b)Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Voris v. Lampert, 446 P.3d 284 (Cal. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Voris v. Lampert, 446 P.3d 284 (Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “( Lab. Code, § 216 ; see Trombley , supra , 31 Cal.”
In Re: George Jercich, Debtor. James A. Petralia v. George Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “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.”
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “The Court bases this conclusion on the fact that the California Supreme Court has linked the knowing and intentional standard to a willfulness standard; that the majority of state appellate and federal trial courts have done the same; that linking the knowing and intentional…”
Davis v. Prentiss Props. Ltd., Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (C.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 5× “Only the fourth cause of action names Coval as a defendant, asserting that Coval wrongfully withheld Davis’s wages in violation of California Labor Code § 216. Defendant Prentiss Properties removed the action to this Court on diversity grounds, asserting that Coval was a sham…”
Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “) Labor Code section 216, subdivision (a) provides any employer who, “[h]aving the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made” is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
People v. Bell, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” (Lab. Code, § 216, subd. (a).) Citing the fraud exception to the imprisonment for debt prohibition, the court noted the prohibition was “adopted to protect the poor but honest debtor who is unable to pay his debts, and [was] not intended to shield a dishonest man who takes an…”
Atchley v. City of Fresno, 151 Cal. App. 3d 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “Labor Code section 216 provides: “In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article, any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor, who: “(a) Having the ability to pay, wilfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after…”
Triad Data Servs., Inc. v. Jackson, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1502 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1984). “923 ]; Lab. Code, § 216.) With these premises in mind, we carefully examine the record to determine if plaintiff was “unsuccessful” in his appeal since he was the party who filed the appeal, and thus liable for reasonable fees and costs, if “unsuccessful”.”
Wallace v. Mun. Court, 140 Cal. App. 3d 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “) 4 The other charges in the second complaint were the refusal to pay wages when demanded (Lab. Code, § 216, subd. (a)); failure to have on hand cash or securities sufficient to pay accrued wages (Lab.”
People v. Bishopp, 56 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 8 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1976). “Labor Code section 216, 1 subdivision (a) reads: “In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article, any person.”
Ephraim v. Jamestown Jud. Dist. Court, 262 P.2d 56 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953). “Illustrative of this is the fact that the wilful failure to pay wages as charged in the first count (Lab. Code, § 216(a), in no way includes any of the elements necessary to prove that petitioner failed to maintain a semimonthly pay roll as charged in count two or that he did1…”
Rose v. Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs allege multiple violations 26 of California law, including (1) failure to pay wages for all 27 hours worked, Cal. Lab. Code § 216 ; (2) failure to pay wages at 28 agreed upon rates, id.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Cal. Labor Code § 216(a) — 1 case
Ephraim v. Jamestown Jud. Dist. Court, 262 P.2d 56 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953). “Illustrative of this is the fact that the wilful failure to pay wages as charged in the first count (Lab. Code, § 216(a), in no way includes any of the elements necessary to prove that petitioner failed to maintain a semimonthly pay roll as charged in count two or that he did1…”
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.