Labor/Employment,
Civil Litigation
Apr. 23, 2020
Civilizing California’s draconian wage statement laws
For over 75 years, California employers have been vexed by the prolix requirements for the statements accompanying paychecks set out on Labor Code Section 226. After a decade of pitched litigation concerning the scope of penalties for violation of these requirements, a state trial court has now definitively held — for the first time — that there are severe statutory limitations on the scope of civil penalties for paystub violations.
Steven B. Katz
Partner
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
1800 Century Park E Fl 6
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 597-4553
Email: skatz@constangy.com
USC Law School
Steven B. Katz is a partner and co-chair of the Appellate Practice Group at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP. He represents employers in class, collective and representative actions, and appeals.
For over 75 years, California employers have been vexed by the prolix requirements for the statements accompanying paychecks set out on Labor Code Section 226. After a decade of pitched litigation concerning the scope of penalties for violation of these requirements, a state trial court has now definitively held -- for the first time -- that there are severe statutory limitations on the scope of civil penalties for paystub violations.
$95
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In