Cal. Codes » Labor Code / DIVISION 2. EMPLOYMENT REGULATION AND SUPERVISION / PART 2. WORKING HOURS / CHAPTER 1. General
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 500 (2026)

General — Working Hours

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

For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(a)“Workday” and “day” mean any consecutive 24-hour period commencing at the same time each calendar day.

(b)“Workweek” and “week” mean any seven consecutive days, starting with the same calendar day each week. “Workweek” is a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours, seven consecutive 24-hour periods.

(c)“Alternative workweek schedule” means any regularly scheduled workweek requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a 24-hour period.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2022 · leading case: In Re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Curtis Higgins v. The Am. Bottling Co., No. 2:22-cv-05351 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022). · cites it 3× “Code § 2802 ); (2) failure to pay minimum statutory wages for all hour worked ( Cal. Lab. Code §§500 , 510, 1194, 1194.2); (3) failure to pay minimum statutory wages for all hour worked ( Cal.”
Singh v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., No. H047337 (Cal. Ct. App. July 29, 2022). “3 does not apply at all to employees of a temporary services employer Labor Code section 500, subdivision (b), provides: “ ‘Workweek’ and ‘week’ 8 mean any seven consecutive days, starting with the same calendar day each week.”
Quinonez v. Payless 4 Plumbing, No. E074467 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2021). “(Lab. Code, §§ 500, 510, & 1194.) 1 Quinonez alleged Beltran owned or controlled the Payless 4 Plumbing business and “exercised control over the labor practices of each and every one of the employees .”
Sandoval Ortega v. AHO Enter., Inc., No. 4:19-cv-00404 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021). “; 2) failure to pay overtime in violation of 12 California Labor Code sections 500, 510, 1194, and the applicable wage order; 3) failure to pay 13 minimum wage in violation of California Labor Code sections 226, 226.”
Jimenez v. Young's Mkt. Co., LLC, No. 3:21-cv-02410 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021). “23 Like Curtis, Radcliff found that the overtime claim under Section 510 was preempted 24 because the CBA met the exemption requirements under Section 514: 25 1 Plaintiff’s alternative workweek schedule consisted of “4 days per week and at least 10 hours 26 each workday” and…”
Rashon Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-03063 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2020). “” 13 Cal. Lab. Code § 500 . If an employer and a unit of employees agree to adopt an 14 alternative workweek schedule, those employees forfeit their right to collect overtime 15 wages for working more than ten hours per day.”
Sandoval Ortega v. AHO Enter., Inc., No. 4:19-cv-00404 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). “In the second amended 5 complaint, which is the operative complaint, Plaintiffs plead the following claims for relief: 1) 6 failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA; 2) failure to pay overtime in violation of 7 California Labor Code sections 500, 510, 1194, and the…”
Arredondo v. Sw. & Pac. Specialty Fin., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01737 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2019). “) 15 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 16 As alleged in the first amended complaint, plaintiff was a non-exempt, hourly worker 17 within the meaning of California Labor Code § 500 et seq, employed by defendant as a Store 18 Manager at various locations in California from April 16, 2008 through…”
Salvador Calzadillas v. The Wonderful Co., No. 1:19-cv-00172 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019). “) Plaintiffs are, and have been throughout the relevant period, non- 6 exempt employees within the meaning of California Labor Code § 500 et seq. and the rules and 7 regulations of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No.”
Armijo v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00440 (D.N.M. Aug. 6, 2019). “See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 500–558.1. Accord Craig v.”
Nunez v. Bae Sys. San Diego Ship Repair Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “5 in particular, California Labor Code §§ 300 et seq. ; California Labor Code §§ 400 et seq.”
Kerbes v. Raceway Assocs., LLC, 961 N.E.2d 865 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2011). “Compare Cal. Labor Code § 500 (b) (West 2010), with 56 Ill.”
Show all 16 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.