Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 2800 (2026)

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

An employer shall in all cases indemnify his employee for losses caused by the employer’s want of ordinary care.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 398 P.3d 69 (Cal. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 398 P.3d 69 (Cal. 2017). “( Lab. Code, §§ 2800, 2802.) PAGA authorizes an employee who has been the subject of particular Labor Code violations to file a representative action on behalf of himself or *539 herself and other aggrieved employees.”
Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F. Supp. 1439 (N.D. Cal. 1993). · cites it 2× “State Law Does Not Control Plaintiff contends that the right to a safe workplace is a nonnegotiable right, guaranteed by California Labor Code sections 2800, 6400, 4551, and 4553, which cannot be bargained for by contract.”
Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “1 Plaintiffs’ complaints Munoz filed the original class action complaint on October 12, 2010, in which she alleged violations of the following statutes: (1) Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 (unpaid business-related expenses); (2) Labor Code sections 201 and 202 (wages not paid…”
MacHinists Auto. Trades Dist. Lodge No. 190 v. Util. Trailer Sales Co., 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 366 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Rather, as I read the statutory scheme here in question, employer's liability, if any, for Bowers' loss of tools must be pursuant to Labor Code section 2800, not section 2802.”
Kisliuk v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 263 F.R.D. 544 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Plaintiffs Sixth Claim In support of her Sixth Cause of Action for violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802, Plaintiff alleges that “Plaintiff and other class members incurred necessary business-related expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by…”
Ramirez v. Cornerstone Bldg. Brands, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 6× “6 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802) 8 (Against CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, INC.”
Turner v. LTF Club Mgmt. Co, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 3× “1; (5) failure to timely pay final wages in violation of 11 California Labor Code sections 201 and 202; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment 12 in violation of Labor code section 204; (7) failure to provide complete itemized wage statements 13 in violation of…”
Turner v. LTF Club Mgmt. Co, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 3× “5) failure to timely pay final wages in violation of California 2 Labor Code sections 201 and 202; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment in violation 3 of Labor code section 204; (7) failure to provide complete itemized wage statements in violation 4 of California…”
Exec. Sec. Mgmt., Inc. v. Dahl, 830 F. Supp. 2d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “Cross-defendants move for summary judgment on the thirteenth and fourteenth claims because, according to cross-defendants, Dahl and Johnson “are not entitled to indemnity for costs they incurred to defend themselves in this litigation” within the definition of Cal. Lab.Code §§…”
Ferrell v. Buckingham Prop. Mgmt. (E.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “aid; (6) violation of California Labor Code § 204 9 for wages not timely paid during employment; (7) violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) 10 for non-compliant wage statements; (8) violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) for failure 11 to keep requisite payroll…”
Bell v. NuSil Tech., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “Labor Code § 1174 (d); unreimbursed 15 business expenses in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802; and (10) violation of Cal.”
Ferrell v. Buckingham Prop. Mgmt. (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “id; (6) violation of California Labor Code § 204 14 for wages not timely paid during employment; (7) violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) 15 for non-compliant wage statements; (8) violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) for failure 16 to keep requisite payroll…”
Show all 78 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.