California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 223 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Swafford v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Swafford v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 9× “California Labor Code § 223 Swafford claims that IBM violated California Labor Code § 223. Amend Compl.”

Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 466 P.3d 325 (Cal. 2020). · cites it 3× “Specifically, Labor Code section 221 prohibits an employer from paying wages and then recouping some portion of the wages as a kickback or secret deduction;3 Labor Code section 222 prohibits underpayment of wages established by a collective bargaining agreement;4 and Labor Code…”

Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources, 443 P.3d 924 (Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Labor Code section 223 states: "Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.”

Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “Second and Third Claims (Wage Claims) Plaintiffs' second claim alleges that Sealy violated California Labor Code section 223, which requires that, "[w]here any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a…”

Brown v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. App. 4th 971 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “The trial court determined that the furlough program, which was implemented in the wake of two executive orders by the Governor, resulted in a reduction in pay for CCPOA members that violated various state statutes, specifically Government Code section 19826, Labor Code section…”

Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “7, 512, and 1198); 2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods (California Labor Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198); 3) Failure to Pay Hourly and Overtime Wages (California Labor Code §§ 223, 510,1194,1197, and 1198); 4) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (California Labor Code…”

Johnson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 809 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “” Cal. Labor Code § 223 . Section 226. This section requires the furnishment by an employer to an employee of an “itemized statement” containing specified information about the employee’s pay.”

Skillin v. Rady Child.'s Hosp.-San Diego, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “" ( Lab. Code, § 223.) The second cause of action, the wage statement claim, alleged that Rady violated Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), which requires employers to provide each employee "an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, .”

Fitz-Gerald v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., 182 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2839 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “) Labor Code section 223 provides: “Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.”

Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 303 F.R.D. 611 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “7, 512, and 1198); 2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods (California Labor Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198); 3) Failure to Pay Hourly and Overtime Wages (California Labor Code §§ 223, 510,1194,1197, and 1198); 4) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (California Labor Code…”

Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists, 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 407 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “Labor Code section 224 sets out deductions which an employer may lawfully make from an employee’s pay. These deductions include (1) amounts the employer is empowered or required to withhold by state or federal law, (2) amounts the employer is authorized, by a collective…”

Lindell v. Synthes USA, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “That ‘something’ was the wage the employee would have earned from the accrual of other sales. Defendants’ argument that it took the deductions from monies that were .”

Show all 39 citing cases →

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.