knowing and intentional violation in California

2024(Cf. Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, 680 [“section 226.3 clearly does not include the knowing and intentional requirement of section 226[, subd.] (e)”]; Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 334 , 354–355 [reading the plain language of the statute to mean that section 226.3 penalties are available only where the employer fails to provide wage statements or keep required records].) 33 NARANJO v. SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

2023(Id., subd. (e)(2)(B)(i).) A knowing and intentional violation occurs “if the employer ‘knew that facts existed that brought its actions or omissions within the provisions of [the statute]’ [citation] or, in other words, ‘was aware of the factual predicate underlying the violation.’ ” (Kao v. Holiday (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 947, 961 .) “The employee is not required to demonstrate that the employer knew its conduct was unlawful.” (Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1085 .) “An actual injury is shown where ‘there is a need for both additional documentation and additional

2010(See Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 456 ["`"the Legislature's decision to criminalize certain employer conduct reflects a determination [that] the conduct affects a broad public interest..."'"].) 4.

2010(See Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 456 ["`"the Legislature's decision to criminalize certain employer conduct reflects a determination [that] the conduct affects a broad public interest . . ."'"].) 4.

2017Legislative History Though the statutory text is clear, relevant legislative history further demonstrates section 226(e) authorizes a private right of action for statutory damages recoverable by an individual plaintiff rather than a civil penalty for the benefit of the public. ( Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685 , 697, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 124 P.3d 719 ["Although the plain language of the statutes dictates the result here [citation], legislative *6 history provides additional authority."].) The language allowing an individual to bring a claim for damages

2017Legislative History Though the statutory text is clear, relevant legislative history further demonstrates section 226(e) authorizes a private right of action for statutory damages recoverable by an individual plaintiff rather than a civil penalty for the benefit of the public. ( Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685 , 697, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 149 , 124 P.3d 719 ["Although the plain language of the statutes dictates the result here [citation], legislative *6 history provides additional authority."].) The language allowing an individual to bring a claim for damages

2023(Id., subd. (e)(2)(B)(i).) A knowing and intentional violation occurs “if the employer ‘knew that facts existed that brought its actions or omissions within the provisions of [the statute]’ [citation] or, in other words, ‘was aware of the factual predicate underlying the violation.’ ” (Kao v. Holiday (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 947, 961 .) “The employee is not required to demonstrate that the employer knew its conduct was unlawful.” (Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1085 .) “An actual injury is shown where ‘there is a need for both additional documentation and additional

2023(See Kao v. Holiday, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 961 [a knowing and intentional violation occurs “if the employer ‘knew that facts existed that brought its actions or omissions within the provisions of [the statute]’ [citation] or, in other words, ‘was aware of the factual predicate underlying the violation’ ”].)15 15 In view of our conclusions, we need not and do not consider any of the other arguments raised by the parties. 29 DISPOSITION The order granting Safeway’s motions in limine is reversed.

2018(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115; Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1096, fn. 18 .) 8 We turn now to whether summary adjudication in favor of Coastal Pacific was proper as to either Raines’s individual claim for statutory penalties or her representative (PAGA) claim for civil penalties from Coastal Pacific for its failure to provide accurate wage statements.

2018In Lopez , the plaintiff filed suit alleging a single cause of action, a PAGA claim for failure to include the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number on the itemized wage statement, as required by section 226(a)(7). ( Lopez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 776 , 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) The defendant employer moved for summary judgment contending the plaintiff had not shown injury from a knowing and intentional violation. *679 The trial court granted the motion, finding no triable issue of fact as to whether the violation was knowing and intentio

2018In Lopez , the plaintiff filed suit alleging a single cause of action, a PAGA claim for failure to include the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number on the itemized wage statement, as required by section 226(a)(7). ( Lopez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 776 , 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) The defendant employer moved for summary judgment contending the plaintiff had not shown injury from a knowing and intentional violation. *679 The trial court granted the motion, finding no triable issue of fact as to whether the violation was knowing and intentio