400 | 2025 Cal-Peculiarities ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com retroactively. Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp., 5 Cal. App. 5th 926, 959 (2016) (Labor Code section 226(e)(2)(B)(i) “clarifies that injury arises from defects in the wage statement, rather than from a showing that an individual experienced harm as a result of the defect”). 38 Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4th 949, 955 (2005) (reversing summary judgment to employer; quoting with apparent approval DLSE Opinion Letter 2002.05.17, at 3, 6) (emphasis in original). 39 See Clarke v. First Transit, Inc., 2010 WL 11459322, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (PAGA claim); Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2019 WL 365898, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (PAGA claim); Jones v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., 2010 WL 11508656, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2010 (PAGA claim). 40 Noori v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Solutions, Inc., 43 Cal. App. 5th 957, 965 (2019) (reversing dismissal of wage statement claim). Meanwhile, on the wage statement, it was sufficient there to use an acronym for the employer’s fictitious business name. 41 Drum v. Saks & Co., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1225 (S.D. Cal. 2015); McKenzie v. Federal Express Corp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1225 (C.D. Cal. 2011). 42 Morgan v. United Retail Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1136, 1147, 1149 (2010) (affirming summary adjudication to employer; “The employee could simply add together the total regular hours figure and the total overtime hours figure shown on the wage statement to arrive at the sum of hours worked.”). 43 Savea v. YRC Inc., 34 Cal. App. 5th 173, 176 (2019) (affirming dismissal of complaint; “YRC did not violate section 226, subdivision (a)(8) by providing its fictitious business name as the employer name on its wage statements or by providing an employer address that did not contain a mail stop code or ZIP+4 Code.”). 44 Gen. Atomics v. Superior Ct., 64 Cal. App. 5th 987, 990 (2021), rev. denied (Sept. 15, 2021) (reversing trial court and awarding summary judgment to employer). 45 Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 999 F.3d 668, 680 (9th Cir. 2021) (reversing judgment and award of damages to employee on wage statement claim). 46 Id. at 682. 47 Lab. Code § 2699.5. 48 Lab. Code § 2699(f)(2). 49 Lopez v. Friant & Assocs., LLC, 15 Cal. App. 5th 773, 784 (2017) (reversing summary judgment to employer; “Because section 226(e)(1) sets forth the elements of a private cause of action for damages and statutory penalties, its requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate ‘injury’ resulting from a ‘knowing and intentional’ violation of section 226(a) is not applicable to a PAGA claim for recovery of civil penalties.”). See also Raines v. Coastal Pac. Food Distributors, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 667, 676-77, 679-80, 681 (2018) (reversing summary judgment to employer on PAGA claim; where wage statement shows overtime hours and total overtime payment, plaintiff could use simple arithmetic to derive the missing hourly rate, satisfying the statutory exception to the “deemed to suffer injury” provision that applies where “a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information”; by contrast, PAGA has no “injury” requirement and so plaintiff could proceed with her PAGA claim though a “trial court has discretion in awarding civil penalties and may reduce the award for technical violations that cause no injury”). 50 Heritage Residential Care, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, 192 Cal. App. 4th 75 (2011) (“inadvertent” is not defined in the statute, it should receive its “plain and commonsense meaning”—unintentional, accidental, or not deliberate). 51 Raines v. Coastal Pac. Food Distribs., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 667, 674-75 (2018) (reversing summary judgment to employer on PAGA claim) (emphasis in original). 52 Id. at 675. 53 Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 72 Cal. App. 5th 334 (2021). 54 AB 2288. 55 Lab. Code § 299(f)(2)(i). 56 Lab. Code § 2699(v). 57 DLSE Opinion Letter 2006.07.06. 58 Lab. Code § 226(a) (“a copy of the [wage] statement and the record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California”). 59 Lab. Code § 226(a) (“For purposes of this subdivision, ‘copy’ includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision.”). 60 SB 1252, amending Lab. Code § 226(b) (“An employer … shall afford current and former employees the right to inspect or receive a copy of records pertaining to their employment.”). 61 Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 5 Cal. App. 5th 154, 174, 183 (2016) (reversing dismissal of complaint in part), review granted, No. S238941 (Cal. Feb. 15, 2016). 62 Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 6 Cal. 5th 817 (2019) (affirming dismissal of complaint as to payroll company on causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation). 63 Id. at 821. 64 Id. 65 Id. at 841. 66 Corp. Code § 1502.1(a)(4). 67 Lab. Code § 431 (repealed in 2004 by S.B.1809).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4