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 § 232 (2026)

General Occupations

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

No employer may do any of the following:

(a)Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages.

(b)Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose the amount of his or her wages.

(c)Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “” (Lab. Code, § 232, subd. (c), italics added (hereafter section 232).”
Maddock v. KB Homes, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2007). · cites it 2× “5 (a), pertaining to California’s policy of vigorously enforcing minimum labor standards for employees, and Cal. Labor Code § 232 , which prohibits employers from requiring that their employees refrain from disclosing their wages.”
Harvey v. Sybase, Inc., 103 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Sybase Was Entitled to Judgment on Harvey's Labor Code Section 232 Claim Because Harvey Did Not Disclose the "Amount of Her Wages" Labor Code section 232, subdivision (c) prohibits an employer from discharging an employee "who discloses the amount of his or her wages.”
Sinatra v. Chico Unified Sch. Dist., 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “) Labor Code section 232 prohibits an employer from disciplining or otherwise discriminating against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages.”
Marcie Hamilton v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 4× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 232 . Labor Code § 1197.”
Doe v. Google, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “For example, one provision prohibits employers from preventing an employee “from disclosing the amount of his or her wages” (Lab. Code, § 232), a statute that was enacted at the urging of women’s groups to protect employees sharing information necessary to the enforcement of…”
Tawasha v. Select Comfort Retail Corp. CA1/5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “) The trial court found “this [provision] clearly weighs in favor of substantive unconscionability because it violates the public policy against prohibiting employees from disclosing their compensation as embodied in Labor Code section 232.” The court is correct.”
Moniz v. Adecco USA (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “This includes, but is not limited to, PAGA claims for violation of 9 California Labor Code sections 232, 232.5, 432.”
Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “” (Lab. Code, § 232.) The Confidentiality Agreement on its face violated the Labor Code.”
Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “” (Lab. Code, § 232.) The Confidentiality Agreement on its face violated the Labor Code.”
Marcie Hamilton v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “Labor Code §§ 232, 232.5, and 1197.5(k) generally outlaw employer prohibitions on the 15 disclosure or discussion of wages and working conditions.”
Demma v. Beatport, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2023). “Discussing compensation with fellow employees is protected conduct under 1 California Labor Code sections 232 & 923 and the National Labor Relations Act.”
Cal. Labor Code § 232(a): 1 case
Maddock v. KB Homes, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “5 (a), pertaining to California’s policy of vigorously enforcing minimum labor standards for employees, and Cal. Labor Code § 232 , which prohibits employers from requiring that their employees refrain from disclosing their wages.”
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.