California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 226 (2026)

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

(a)An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to their employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of their social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. For purposes of this subdivision, “copy” includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision.

(b)An employer that is required by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant to this code to keep the information required by subdivision (a) shall afford current and former employees the right to inspect or receive a copy of records pertaining to their employment, upon reasonable request to the employer. The employer may take reasonable steps to ensure the identity of a current or former employee. If the employer provides copies of the records, the actual cost of reproduction may be charged to the current or former employee.

(c)An employer who receives a written or oral request to inspect or receive a copy of records pursuant to subdivision (b) pertaining to a current or former employee shall comply with the request as soon as practicable, but no later than 21 calendar days from the date of the request. A violation of this subdivision is an infraction. Impossibility of performance, not caused by or a result of a violation of law, shall be an affirmative defense for an employer in any action alleging a violation of this subdivision. An employer may designate the person to whom a request under this subdivision will be made.

(d)This section does not apply to any employer of a person employed by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of children, or whose duties are personal and not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant.

(e)(1)An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

(2)(A)An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide a wage statement.

(B)An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone one or more of the following:

(i)The amount of the gross wages or net wages paid to the employee during the pay period or any of the other information required to be provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a).

(ii)Which deductions the employer made from gross wages to determine the net wages paid to the employee during the pay period. Nothing in this subdivision alters the ability of the employer to aggregate deductions consistent with the requirements of item (4) of subdivision (a).

(iii)The name and address of the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer during the pay period.

(iv)The name of the employee and only the last four digits of their social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number.

(C)For purposes of this paragraph, “promptly and easily determine” means a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information.

(3)For purposes of this subdivision, a “knowing and intentional failure” does not include an isolated and unintentional payroll error due to a clerical or inadvertent mistake. In reviewing for compliance with this section, the factfinder may consider as a relevant factor whether the employer, prior to an alleged violation, has adopted and is in compliance with a set of policies, procedures, and practices that fully comply with this section.

(f)A failure by an employer to permit a current or former employee to inspect or receive a copy of records within the time set forth in subdivision (c) entitles the current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a seven-hundred-fifty-dollar ($750) penalty from the employer.

(g)The listing by an employer of the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer in the itemized statement required by subdivision (a) shall not create any liability on the part of that legal entity.

(h)An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

(i)This section does not apply to the state, to any city, county, city and county, district, or to any other governmental entity, except that if the state or a city, county, city and county, district, or other governmental entity furnishes its employees with a check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, the state or a city, county, city and county, district, or other governmental entity shall use no more than the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or shall use an employee identification number other than the social security number on the itemized statement provided with the check, draft, or voucher.

(j)An itemized wage statement furnished by an employer pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be required to show total hours worked by the employee if any of the following apply:

(1)The employee’s compensation is solely based on salary and the employee is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(2)The employee is exempt from the payment of minimum wage and overtime under any of the following:

(A)The exemption for persons employed in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity provided in any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(B)The exemption for outside salespersons provided in any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(C)The overtime exemption for computer software professionals paid on a salaried basis provided in Section 515.5.

(D)The exemption for individuals who are the parent, spouse, child, or legally adopted child of the employer provided in any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(E)The exemption for participants, director, and staff of a live-in alternative to an incarceration rehabilitation program with special focus on substance abusers provided in Section 8002 of the Penal Code.

(F)The exemption for any crew member employed on a commercial passenger fishing boat licensed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 7920) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 6 of the Fish and Game Code provided in any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(G)The exemption for any individual participating in a national service program provided in any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(H)The exemption for any person who has entered into a contract to play baseball at the minor league level who satisfies the requirements set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 514.5.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 911 cases (529 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 35× “Specifically, Plaintiffs claim Wal-Mart violated: (1) Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 for failure to pay adequate compensation for missed meal breaks; (2) Cal.”
Charles Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 986 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 29× “in two consolidated cases brought by certified classes of United pilots and flight attendants who reside in California, alleging that the wage statements they received from United failed to comply with California Labor Code § 226. The panel certified to the California Supreme…”
Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 15× “WAL-MART ASSOCIATES SUMMARY ** Article III Standing / California Labor Law In a class action suit brought by Roderick Magadia, a former Walmart employee, alleging violations of California Labor Code’s meal-break and wage-statement requirements, the panel: (1) vacated the…”
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 14× “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Ming-Hsiang Kao v. Joy Holiday, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 8× “) Kao further alleged defendants failed to provide adequate wage and hour statements (Lab. Code, § 226 ) and timely payment of wages upon his termination (Lab.”
McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 13× “Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (a). The Court therefore addresses the meaning of each of those subsections and their application in this case.”
Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 9× “Code §§ 201 , 202 and 203 ; (2) Failure to Provide Adequate Pay Stubs, Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (a) ; (3) Failure to Provide Reporting Time Pay, IWC Wage Order 7; (4) Unfair Competition, Cal.”
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 13× “" Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (e). However, because Plaintiff's PAGA claim only seeks penalties on the LWDA's behalf, Plaintiff "need only prove a violation of Section 226(a), and need not establish a Section 226(e) injury.”
Garnett v. ADT LLC, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (E.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 15× “) In addition, plaintiff seeks both statutory penalties under California Labor Code section 226, which governs the furnishing of accurate Wage statements to employees; and civil penalties under PAGA.”
Robles v. Agreserves, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 952 (E.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 6× “Second, a violation of § 226 requires a showing of knowing and intentional conduct by the employer.”
Charles Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 889 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 17× “Does the RLA exemption in Wage Order 9 bar a wage statement claim brought under California Labor Code § 226 by an employee who is covered by a CBA? (2) Does California Labor Code § 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of- state employer to an employee who resides in…”
Cabardo v. Patacsil, 248 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 12× “Sixth Claim: California Labor Code § 226 California Labor Code § 226 requires employers to provide their employees with “an accurate itemized statement in writing showing” nine critical payroll elements.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(B) — 1 case
Sandra Garybo v. Leonardo Bros (E.D. Cal. 2021).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a) — 184 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (a). The Court therefore addresses the meaning of each of those subsections and their application in this case.”
Derum v. Saks & Co., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
Garnett v. ADT LLC, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “) In addition, plaintiff seeks both statutory penalties under California Labor Code section 226, which governs the furnishing of accurate Wage statements to employees; and civil penalties under PAGA.”
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “" Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (e). However, because Plaintiff's PAGA claim only seeks penalties on the LWDA's behalf, Plaintiff "need only prove a violation of Section 226(a), and need not establish a Section 226(e) injury.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(1) — 1 case
Faibvre (S.D. Cal. 2026).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(2) — 6 cases
Garnett v. ADT LLC, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “) In addition, plaintiff seeks both statutory penalties under California Labor Code section 226, which governs the furnishing of accurate Wage statements to employees; and civil penalties under PAGA.”
McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 275 F.R.D. 290 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
Susan Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 689 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2012).
Dominguez v. Leprino Foods Co. (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(6) — 7 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “" Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (e). However, because Plaintiff's PAGA claim only seeks penalties on the LWDA's behalf, Plaintiff "need only prove a violation of Section 226(a), and need not establish a Section 226(e) injury.”
Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (a). The Court therefore addresses the meaning of each of those subsections and their application in this case.”
Novoa v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(7) — 2 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Zhou v. Chai (N.D. Cal. 2024).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(8) — 4 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2019). “Code §§ 201 , 202 and 203 ; (2) Failure to Provide Adequate Pay Stubs, Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (a) ; (3) Failure to Provide Reporting Time Pay, IWC Wage Order 7; (4) Unfair Competition, Cal.”
Krauss v. Walmart, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(a)(9) — 6 cases
McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (a). The Court therefore addresses the meaning of each of those subsections and their application in this case.”
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “" Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (e). However, because Plaintiff's PAGA claim only seeks penalties on the LWDA's behalf, Plaintiff "need only prove a violation of Section 226(a), and need not establish a Section 226(e) injury.”
Loretta Apodaca v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 675 F. App'x 663 (9th Cir. 2017).
Velis v. AT&T Servs. CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(b) — 8 cases
Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 3d 986 (E.D. Cal. 2016).
Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 267 F.R.D. 625 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
Shook v. Indian River Transp. Co., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (2017).
Torres v. Carescope LLC (E.D. Cal. 2020).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(c) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e) — 60 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “" Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (e). However, because Plaintiff's PAGA claim only seeks penalties on the LWDA's behalf, Plaintiff "need only prove a violation of Section 226(a), and need not establish a Section 226(e) injury.”
Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transp., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Varsam v. Lab'y Corp. of Am., 120 F. Supp. 3d 1173 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(1) — 16 cases
Sali ex rel. Themselves v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 909 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2018).
Willner v. Manpower Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Marlyn Sali v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 889 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2018).
Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 303 F.R.D. 611 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(2) — 1 case
Scott v. Cintas Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2024).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(B) — 3 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Dominguez v. Leprino Foods Co. (E.D. Cal. 2025).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(B)(i) — 2 cases
Derum v. Saks & Co., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(C) — 1 case
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(3) — 2 cases
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “It also alleges that Gate Gourmet failed to furnish and maintain accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). The Complaint focuses on the following incidents.”
Derum v. Saks & Co., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(g) — 2 cases
Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (2010).
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(h) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 226(j)(2)(B) — 1 case
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.