California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 510 (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)Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid to an employee for any hour of overtime work. The requirements of this section do not apply to the payment of overtime compensation to an employee working pursuant to any of the following:

(1)An alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511.

(2)An alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Section 514.

(3)An alternative workweek schedule to which this chapter is inapplicable pursuant to Section 554.

(b)Time spent commuting to and from the first place at which an employee’s presence is required by the employer shall not be considered to be a part of a day’s work, when the employee commutes in a vehicle that is owned, leased, or subsidized by the employer and is used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code.

(c)This section does not affect, change, or limit an employer’s liability under the workers’ compensation law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 652 cases (349 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Carl Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019).
Carl Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “The complaint was based on Curtis’s theory that his 12 off-duty hours counted as “hours worked” for purposes of California labor laws, see Cal. Lab. Code § 510 , because, as a practical matter, he was unable to leave the oil platform during that time.”
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California, 411 P.3d 528 (Cal. 2018). · cites it 6× “) As noted, Labor Code section 510 imposes similar requirements.”
Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “In California, employees are entitled to overtime compensation at a “rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee” for time worked beyond eight hours in a single day or forty-hours over a workweek.”
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018). · cites it 3× “) Federal courts have applied the doctrine in some circumstances to excuse the payment of wages for small amounts of otherwise compensable time upon a showing that the bits of time are administratively difficult to record.”
Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 254 P.3d 237 (Cal. 2011). · cites it 4× “, (Lab. Code, § 510, subd. (a), italics added.”
Rodney Gregory, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Scie, Llc, Dba Epsg Mgmt. Servs., Lp, 317 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 7× “" He alleged he was not paid for overtime work performed for SCIE at premium wage rates in violation of California Labor Code Section 510 and Wage Orders 11 and 12.”
Aaron Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “on their overtime claims, the California class must show that its 24 A jury may also decide that for baseball players, activities like hitting practice with coaches and supervised weightlifting—much like knife-sharpening by butchers at a meatpacking plant— are “integral and…”
Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Lab. Code § 510 . That’s because California considers an employee’s bonus to be part of the employee’s “regular rate of pay” when calculating overtime rates.”
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 96 P.3d 194 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “" (Lab.Code, § 510, subd. (a).) The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), however, is statutorily authorized to "establish exemptions from the requirement that an overtime rate of compensation be paid .”
Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 4× “Bonus/Overtime Claim Plaintiffs and Defendant both seek summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiffs’ claim under California Labor Code § 510 for unpaid overtime resulting from Defendant’s failure to include bonus payments in the “regular rate of pay” when calculating overtime…”
Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc., 596 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, our reading of Morillion is consistent with California Labor Code § 510(b), which provides that "[t]ime spent commuting to and from the first place at which an employee's presence is required by the employer shall not be considered to be a part of a day's work, when…”
Huntington Mem'l Hosp. v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6813 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “) More specifically, California Labor Code section 510, subdivision (a) provides, as relevant here, an employee is entitled to overtime pay at one and one-half times the “regular rate” for work in excess of eight hours in one day and twice the “regular rate” for work in excess…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 510(a) — 34 cases
Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016). “In California, employees are entitled to overtime compensation at a “rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee” for time worked beyond eight hours in a single day or forty-hours over a workweek.”
Carl Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019). “The complaint was based on Curtis’s theory that his 12 off-duty hours counted as “hours worked” for purposes of California labor laws, see Cal. Lab. Code § 510 , because, as a practical matter, he was unable to leave the oil platform during that time.”
Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “Bonus/Overtime Claim Plaintiffs and Defendant both seek summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiffs’ claim under California Labor Code § 510 for unpaid overtime resulting from Defendant’s failure to include bonus payments in the “regular rate of pay” when calculating overtime…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 510(a)(2) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 510(b) — 6 cases
Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc., 596 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). “Furthermore, our reading of Morillion is consistent with California Labor Code § 510(b), which provides that "[t]ime spent commuting to and from the first place at which an employee's presence is required by the employer shall not be considered to be a part of a day's work, when…”
Joseluis Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015).
Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc., 578 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2009).
Rutti v. Lojack Corp. (9th Cir. 2009).
Rutti v. Lojack Corp. (9th Cir. 2010).
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.