Cal. Codes » Labor Code
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 .”
Rhea v. Gen. Atomics, 227 Cal. App. 4th 1560 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “11 Finally, Labor Code section 223 provides that “[wjhere 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.”
Ramirez v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “" [5] 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.”
Yoder v. W. Express, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 704 (C.D. Cal. 2015). “Labor Code sections 223 (“payment of less than statutory or contractual wage scale”); 1194 (minimum wage); 1197 (same); and IWC Order No.”
Lingle v. Centimark Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 3× “11 Centimark moves also to dismiss Lingle’s PAGA claim to the extent it is based on 12 California Labor Code section 223. Mot. at 17–19; see also Second Am.”
Tielemans v. Aegion Energy Servs. CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “7, 1198); (4) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages (Lab. Code, §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.”
Harper v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “The court will therefore grant summary 26 judgment in favor of Charter as to plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim for 27 violation of California Labor Code § 223. 28 However, while § 223 does not provide plaintiffs with a 33 Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 111 Filed 02/16/21 Page 34 of…”
Lobo v. Air-India Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “17 On the basis of these allegations, Lobo pleads sixteen causes of action: (i) failure to pay 18 minimum wage under California Labor Code §§ 223, 1182, 1197, et seq.”
Skillin v. Rady Child.'s Hosp.-San Diego (Cal. Ct. App. 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, .”
Alexis Gomez v. Rapid Pasadena Servs., LLC (C.D. Cal. 2021). “7, 1198; (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 223 , 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1997.”
Lizabeth Gralnik v. DXC Tech. Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2021). “Labor Code § 2802 ; (7) unlawful forfeiture in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 223 ; (8) unlawful clawback in violation of Cal.”
Lopez v. West Coast Arborists, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “Third Claim2 7 Plaintiff’s third claim alleges that defendant failed 8 to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code § 510 9 and minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code § 223.”
Middleton v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “The Settlement Agreement 17 According to the Agreement, Plaintiff’s PAGA claim is based on the following alleged 18 California Labor Code Violations: (1) aggrieved employees were not paid minimum wage for all 19 work performed; (2) aggrieved employees were not paid overtime and…”
Meek v. Skywest, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). “Meek’s 23 claim rests on San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12P (Minimum Compensation 24 Ordinance or “MCO”) and California Labor Code Sections 223, 225.5 and 1197, and his claim 25 also references San Francisco International Airport’s Quality Standards Program (“QSP”).”
Smith v. Golden State Warriors, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2020). “27 11 Cal. Lab. Code § 223 : “Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain 1 violate § 226(a)(1).”
Diaz v. Rescare, Inc et.al. (N.D. Cal. 2020). “7, 512, and 1198; (2) to provide rest periods in violation 4 of California Labor Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) to pay hourly wages in violation of 5 California Labor Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1194.”
Quiruz v. Specialty Commodities, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020). “7, and 1198; (7) failure to pay 9 hourly wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 223 , 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.”
John Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022). “The 6 operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) advances five claims under California Law for (1) 7 failure to pay hourly wages, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 223 , 510, 1194, 1197, 1198; (2) failure to provide 8 accurate written wage statements, id.”
John Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022). “The 5 operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) advances five claims under California Law for (1) 6 failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 223 , 510, 1194, 1197, 1198; (2) 7 failure to provide accurate written wage statements, id.”
Kulik v. NMCI Med. Clinic Inc (N.D. Cal. 2023). “; (2) 8 violation of the California Labor Code §§ 223, 1194, 1194.”
Smith v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals (S.D. Cal. 2019). “Code § 2802 ); failure to pay minimum wages and regular 5 wages for all hours worked ( Cal. Lab. Code §§ 223 , 1194, 1197.1 and Wage Order 4-2001); unlawful wage deductions ( Cal.”
Hovis v. Homeaglow, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2023). “7]; (6) Failure to Pay Contractual 24 Wages [Lab. Code, § 223]; (7) Coerced Patronage [Lab.”
Garcia v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “1 Garcia’s claim for failure to pay overtime under California Labor Code Section 512 is preempted under the first step of Burnside because his CBA provides for wages, hours of work, working conditions, premium wage rates for overtime, and a regular hourly rate over 30% of the…”
Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enter., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2024). “7 and 1198; (3) failure to pay all wages earned at the correct rates of pay under 14 California Labor Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1197, 1198; (4) failure to indemnify under 15 California Labor Code §§ 1198 and 2802; (5) failure to issue accurate and complete wage 16 statements under…”
Ramirez De Portillo v. Metro Servs. Grp. (N.D. Cal. 2025). “24 Labor Code §§ 223, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) 25 Wage Order § 3-4), (2) failure to pay overtime wages ( Cal.”
Delgado v. Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2025). “Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime Claim 3 The third cause of action alleges failure to pay hourly and overtime wages in 4 violation of California Labor Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, and 1198.”
Silva v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals (E.D. Cal. 2025). “) 26 Plaintiff initially alleged fifteen causes of action: CFRA Interference; CFRA 27 Retaliation; Physical Disability Discrimination; Failure to Engage in the Interactive 28 Process; Failure to Accommodate; FEHA Retaliation; Wrongful Termination in 1 Violation of Public Policy;…”
Harvey v. Yellowpages.Com CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “3); (7) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (8) failure to prevent harassment in violation of the FEHA; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10) failure to pay compensation in accordance with designated wage scales and overtime…”
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.