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
Chorba v. The Regents of the U. of Cal. CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
“” (Lab. Code, § 970, subds. (a)– (d).) The P&T Committee concluded this grievance failed to allege a prima facie case and denied it without further investigation.”
Storey v. Tahoe Sierra Eye & Optical CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “1 Labor Code section 970 “prohibits employers from inducing employees to relocate and accept employment by way of knowingly false representations regarding the kind, character, or existence of work, or the length of time such work will last.”
Ross v. Trs. of California State Univ. CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “These were, (a) by Ross, for loss of consortium; and (b) by Operstein, causes of action for promissory estoppel, wrongful termination, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring, violation of Labor Code section 970, invasion of privacy,…”
Egan v. Fastaff, LLC (D. Colo. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Code § 17200 , and California Labor Code § 970, based on its allegations of pay-rate changes without disclosing the possibility of those changes in the AALs.”
Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 5× “Rozzo’s First Amended Complaint alleges the following claims against Sun 19 Pharma: (1) Violation of California Labor Code section 970 (FAC ¶¶ 22–36); (2) Fraud/Negligent 20 Misrepresentation (FAC ¶¶ 37–52); (3) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex and Age (FAC ¶¶ 53– 21 58); (4)…”
Chang v. Cashman (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 5× “ng out of an alleged failed joint investment venture, 14 Plaintiff Stacy Chang sues Defendants Carlos Cashman, Arrowside Capital, LLC, Arrowside Fund 15 GP, LLC, Arrowside Ventures, LLC, Cashman Family Investments II LLC, and Perseverus LLC1 16 (collectively, “Defendants”) for…”
S. v. Ali (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 4× “1 and IWC 5 Wage Order 2 against all Defendants except Wahab Falak; (6) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks 6 under California Labor Code §§, 226.7, 558.1 and applicable wage orders against all Defendants 7 except Wahab Falak; (7) Waiting time penalties under California Labor Code §§…”
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.