Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cabardo v. Patacsilgreen2 sentences2019Numerous other courts considering the issue have rejected a good faith defense to Labor Code section 226, because it “ ‘stands contrary to the often repeated legal maxim: “ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.” ’ ” (Cabardo, supra, 248 F.Supp.3d at p. 1010 [collecting cases]; see Kao v. Holiday (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 947 , 961–962 [employer’s good faith belief that employee is exempt amounts to mistake of law that is not excused under Lab. 2018Numerous other courts considering the issue have rejected a good faith defense to Labor Code section 226, because it " 'stands contrary to the often repeated legal maxim: "ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally." ' " ( Cabardo , supra , 248 F.Supp.3d at p. 1010 [collecting cases]; see Kao v. Holiday (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 947 , 961-962, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 580 [employer's good faith belief that employee is exempt amounts to mistake of law that is not excused under Lab. | 2 | 2 |
Ming-Hsiang Kao v. Joy Holidaygreen2 sentences2019Numerous other courts considering the issue have rejected a good faith defense to Labor Code section 226, because it “ ‘stands contrary to the often repeated legal maxim: “ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.” ’ ” (Cabardo, supra, 248 F.Supp.3d at p. 1010 [collecting cases]; see Kao v. Holiday (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 947 , 961–962 [employer’s good faith belief that employee is exempt amounts to mistake of law that is not excused under Lab. 2018Numerous other courts considering the issue have rejected a good faith defense to Labor Code section 226, because it " 'stands contrary to the often repeated legal maxim: "ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally." ' " ( Cabardo , supra , 248 F.Supp.3d at p. 1010 [collecting cases]; see Kao v. Holiday (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 947 , 961-962, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 580 [employer's good faith belief that employee is exempt amounts to mistake of law that is not excused under Lab. | 2 | 2 |
Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resourcesgreen1 sentence2025Section 1(B) of Wage Order No. 4 states: “Except as provided in Sections 1, 2, 4, 10, and 20, the provisions of this order shall not apply to any employees directly employed by the State or any political subdivision thereof, including any city, county, or special district.” (Italics added; see Stoetzl v. Department of Human Resources, supra, at p. 726 [“Thus, only sections 1, 2, 4, 10, and 20 of Wage Order No. 4 govern state employment.”]; see also Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040 , 1057 [identical carve-out language in Wage Order No. 5 “expressly excludes public employers | 1 | 1 |
Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp.green1 sentence2023As for Safeway’s liability on the wage statement claim, the question is whether Safeway failed to provide accurate and complete information as required by section 226, subdivision (a) and the drivers could not promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone any of the 28 enumerated items (e.g., piece-rate units earned). (§ 226, subd. (e)(2)(B)(i); see id., subd. (e)(2)(C) [“ ‘promptly and easily determine’ to mean ‘a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information’ ”]; Raines, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 676 , | 1 | 1 |
Kinda v. Carpentergreen1 sentence2023(See Kinda, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1285 [“The rule is that a trial court may not grant a defendant’s motion for nonsuit if plaintiff’s evidence would support a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor”].) Because the trial court did not provide any reasons for granting Safeway’s Motion in Limine No. 2, we will address each of the grounds raised by Safeway in support of its motion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boyd v. Bank of America Corp.
green
2 sentences2019Although the federal court in Boyd held that an employer’s wage statement violation is not knowing and intentional if the employer “had a good faith belief that the [employees] were properly classified as exempt [and therefore § 226 inapplicable]” (Boyd, supra, 109 F.Supp.3d at p. 1308 ), this case appears to be in the minority. 2018Although the federal court in Boyd held that an employer's wage statement violation is not knowing and intentional if the employer "had a good faith belief that the [employees] were properly classified as exempt [and therefore § 226 inapplicable]" ( Boyd , supra , 109 F.Supp.3d at p. 1308 ), this case appears to be in the minority. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
green
1 sentence2025(Cf. Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 , 300- 301 [public employee’s minimum wages claim under Wage Order No. 4 could proceed because applicable provision, section 4, among those excepted under section 1(B) of the wage order].) It was therefore error to enter judgment in Goleco’s favor on his wage statement claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Raines v. Coastal Pac. Food Distribs., Inc.
green
2 sentences2023As for Safeway’s liability on the wage statement claim, the question is whether Safeway failed to provide accurate and complete information as required by section 226, subdivision (a) and the drivers could not promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone any of the 28 enumerated items (e.g., piece-rate units earned). (§ 226, subd. (e)(2)(B)(i); see id., subd. (e)(2)(C) [“ ‘promptly and easily determine’ to mean ‘a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information’ ”]; Raines, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 676 , 2023As for Safeway’s liability on the wage statement claim, the question is whether Safeway failed to provide accurate and complete information as required by section 226, subdivision (a) and the drivers could not promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone any of the 28 enumerated items (e.g., piece-rate units earned). (§ 226, subd. (e)(2)(B)(i); see id., subd. (e)(2)(C) [“ ‘promptly and easily determine’ to mean ‘a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information’ ”]; Raines, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 676 , | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Morgan v. United Retail Inc.
green
2 sentences2021(Morgan, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1146 .) “The purpose of the wage statement requirement is to provide transparency as to the calculation of wages.” (Morgan, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1149 , citing DLSE Opn. 2021(Morgan, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1146 .) “The purpose of the wage statement requirement is to provide transparency as to the calculation of wages.” (Morgan, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1149 , citing DLSE Opn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.