Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 970 (2026)

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

No person, or agent or officer thereof, directly or indirectly, shall influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this State or from any place outside to any place within the State, or from any place within the State to any place outside, for the purpose of working in any branch of labor, through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning either:

(a)The kind, character, or existence of such work;

(b)The length of time such work will last, or the compensation therefor;

(c)The sanitary or housing conditions relating to or surrounding the work;

(d)The existence or nonexistence of any strike, lockout, or other labor dispute affecting it and pending between the proposed employer and the persons then or last engaged in the performance of the labor for which the employee is sought.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Code, §§ 201, 203); (4) false promise; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) promissory estoppel; and (8) misrepresentation to induce relocation for employment (Lab. Code, § 970). Defendants moved for…”
Gilberto Rivera, Nicholas Alberto, Luis Navarro, Jose Garcia, Hector Garcia, Pablo Galindo, Socorro Mendivil, Rogelio Casares v. Joe Anaya, 726 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “The issue in Chavarria was whether a suit for double damages under Cal.Lab.Code §§ 970 and 972 should be classified as a suit to *568 enforce a penalty.”
Mercuro v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “" [27] Labor Code section 970 also has a public purpose: to protect the community from the harm inflicted when a fraudulently induced employment ceases and the former employee is left in the community without roots or resources and becomes a charge on the community.”
Seubert v. McKesson Corp., 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Labor Code Sections 970 and 972 Seubert asserts that he is entitled to double damages pursuant to Labor Code sections 970 and 972.”
Levy v. Skywalker Sound, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4065 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “14 As relevant to this case, Labor Code section 970 provides that “No person, or agent or officer thereof, directly or indirectly, shall influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this State .”
Lozada v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1080 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “) Moreover, insofar as the civil penalty provides compensation beyond the actual injury suffered by the injured public safety officer where the public entity employer acted with the requisite malicious intent, the civil penalty, if not clearly compensation for “damages,” is a…”
United States v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1240 (E.D. Cal. 2019). “§ 3730 (h) ; (5) misrepresentation in violation of California Labor Code § 970 ; and (6) wrongful termination.”
Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 223 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 4× “The complaint alleged state law causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of individual employment contract, violation of California Labor Code § 970, and discharge in violation of the public policy expressed in California Labor Code § 970.”
Circuit City Stores, Inc., a Virginia Corp. v. Paul Mantor, an Individual, 335 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003). “The causes of action included: (1) tortious termination in violation of public policy; (2) retaliation; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) violation of California Labor Code § 970; (6) fraud-intentional misrepresentation;…”
Munoz v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 156 Cal. App. 3d 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Labor Code Sections 970 to 973 Plaintiff finally contends the evidence before the court was sufficient to support a recovery for misrepresentation of employment opportunity under sections 970 to 973 of the Labor Code which do not require a writing.”
Adams v. One Park Place Investors, LLC, 315 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Count Three was a “misrepresentation” claim against OPPI and Foote pursuant to the California Labor Code, Section 970. In part because this case was assigned at differing times to three different judges, the procedural history pertaining to the dispositive motions filed by OPPI…”
Berdux v. Proj. Time & Cost, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 4× “Berdux brought the present lawsuit for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory and equitable estoppel, and violation of California Labor Code section 970. Id. ¶¶ 38-98.”
Show all 62 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.