The California Court of Appeal attempts to clarify some of the requirements for employers’ paystubs, as required by Labor Code 226.
Employee Amber Morgan (Morgan) filed a class action lawsuit against her former employer, United Retail Incorporated (United Retail), for violations of Labor Code section 226.
Labor Code section 226(a) provides, in pertinent part:
Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash,
an accurate itemized statement in writing showing:
(1) gross wages earned,
(2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
(3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis,
(4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item,
(5) net wages earned,
(6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid,
(7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number may be shown on the itemized statement,
(8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and
(9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
On behalf of a class of herself and current and former non-exempt employees, Morgan alleged that United Retail’s wage statements failed to comply with section 226, subdivision (a) because they listed the total number of regular hours and the total number of overtime hours worked by the employee, but did not list the sum of the regular and overtime hours worked in a separate line. Morgan alleged that the separate line was required by Labor Code section 226(a)(2).
The trial court disagreed and dismissed the section 226 claims. The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly dismissed the claims because United Retail’s wage statements complied with the statutory requirements of section 226 by “showing . . . total hours worked.” The Court reasoned, in part, that the plain language of the statute did not specifically require two separate lines and that the paystubs used by United Retail provided the employees with the essential information for verifying that they were being paid for all hours worked. Morgan v. United Retail Incorporated (July 2010).
While the employer prevailed in this case, the case is a reminder of the strict requirements of Labor Code section 226. Employers must be sure that each and every paystub contains all of the required information to avoid liability. If you have any questions about this case, or other wage and hour issues, please feel free to contact Susan E. Bishop
Susan E. Bishop graduated from the Santa Clara University School of Law in 1996. She specializes in the representation of management in employment law matters. Her practice includes working with nonprofit and for-profit corporations on many issues, including incorporation, employee relations, personnel policies, wage and hour matters, discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination.To lean more about Susan’s specialties of law, please view her profile under attorneys. If you would like to speak with Susan, please call 408-369-0800.