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 § 224 (2026)

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

The provisions of Sections 221, 222 and 223 shall in no way make it unlawful for an employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages when the employer is required or empowered so to do by state or federal law or when a deduction is expressly authorized in writing by the employee to cover insurance premiums, hospital or medical dues, or other deductions not amounting to a rebate or deduction from the standard wage arrived at by collective bargaining or pursuant to wage agreement or statute, or when a deduction to cover health and welfare or pension plan contributions is expressly authorized by a collective bargaining or wage agreement.

Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed as authorizing an employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages to pay any tax, fee or charge prohibited by Section 50026 of the Government Code, whether or not the employee authorizes such withholding or diversion.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Nordstrom Comm'n Cases, 186 Cal. App. 4th 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nordstrom Comm'n Cases, 186 Cal. App. 4th 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs agree that by Nordstrom sending this commission calculation notice, Nordstrom shall be deemed to have satisfied and be in full compliance with California Labor Code § 224. [2] The parties agree that Nordstrom is entitled to draft a form of notice it finds suitable for…”
Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Cal. Lab. Code § 224 (emphasis added). Taken together, these sections establish conditions on wage deductions that are "independent" of the CBA.”
Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1191 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” (Lab. Code, § 224.) Where, as here, no collective bargaining agreement or statute is at issue, these provisions prohibit an employer from “collecting or receiving wages that have already been earned by performance of agreed-upon requirements,” unless they are (1) expressly…”
Finnegan v. Schrader, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “) Labor Code section 224 provides in relevant part that section 221 “in no way make[s] it unlawful for an employer to withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages when the employer is required or empowered so to do by state or federal law.”
City of Oakland v. Hassey, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “However, an employer may “withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages” for the benefit of the employee only when such deduction is expressly requested and authorized by the employee in writing, provided that the deduction does not amount to a rebate or deduction from…”
Lindell v. Synthes USA, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “4 (noting that the IWC Orders "purport to provide the employer the right to deduct for losses suffered as a result of dishonest or willful act,” but also that "Labor Code § 224 clearly proscribes any deduction which is not either authorized by the employee in writing or…”
Rolando Lemus v. Denny's Inc., 617 F. App'x 701 (9th Cir. 2015). “” However, California Labor Code section 224 provides an exception: The provisions of Section[ ] 221 .”
Soc. Servs. Union v. Bd. of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “(Lab. Code, § 224.) Further, “ ‘[t]he policy underlying the state’s wage exemption statutes is to insure that regardless of the debtor’s improvidence, the debtor and his or her family will retain enough money to maintain a basic standard of living, so that the debtor may have a…”
Uschold v. NSMG Shared Servs., LLC (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda on 3 January 17, 2018, asserting five claims for relief: (1) unlawful collection of wages earned in 4 violation of California Labor Code § 221; (2) unauthorized deductions…”
Uschold v. NSMG Shared Servs., LLC (N.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “Procedural History 25 Plaintiffs Tyrone Dangerfield and William Uschold initiated this action in the Superior 26 Court of California for the County of Alameda on January 17, 2018, asserting five claims for 27 1 relief: (1) unlawful collection of wages earned in violation of…”
Bellflower Unified Sch. Dist. v. Meeks CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, § 224.)5 BUSD’s collective bargaining agreement with Meeks’s union allows for “optional deductions” that a member may elect to have taken from his or her gross earnings.”
Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” (Lab. Code, § 224.) Where, as here, no collective bargaining agreement or statute is at issue, these provisions prohibit an employer from “collecting or receiving wages that have already been earned by performance or agreed-upon requirements,” unless they are (1) expressly…”
Show all 15 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.