Wage and Hour Defense Blog

While California employers may be generally aware of the nine requirements for wage statements, a careful review of the nuances of each of those requirements is necessary to ensure compliance under Labor Code section 226. But the inquiry does not end there. When, how, and what to do to maintain these records is equally important in maintaining compliance and thereby protecting the company against wage statement penalties.  

Required Contents—the Basics

We previously covered what California employers need to include on wage statements pursuant to Labor Code section 226(a):

1. Gross wages earned;
2. Total hours worked;
3. Certain information for employees paid on a piece-rate basis;
4. All deductions;
5. Net wages earned;
6. Pay period;
7. Employee’s name and either (a) the last four digits of the social security number or (b) employee identification number;
8. Name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and
9. All applicable hourly rates.

Over the past three decades, California voters have reliably approved proposals to increase the statewide minimum wage. Until now.

In November,  by a slim margin of 50.7% to 49.3%, voters surprised many by rejecting Proposition 32, which would have increased minimum wages for most non-exempt employees in the state.

Under Proposition 32, the hourly minimum wage for non-exempt employees working for employers with 26 or more employees would have immediately increased from $16 to $17 for the remainder of 2024, with an additional increase to $18 per hour on January 1, 2025. Those working for employers with 25 or fewer employees would have seen an increase the hourly minimum wage from $16 to $17 on January 1, 2025.

The rejection of Proposition 32 in a state that has historically supported minimum wage increases could signal a shift in the labor landscape. It may reflect concerns about rising costs and fears that families and businesses are being priced out of the Golden State. And the vote could be a bellwether for the nation as California is well known as a trendsetting state, especially on wage-and-hour issues.

On August 1, 2024, in Turrieta v. Lyft et al., the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action does not have a right to intervene -- or to object to or vacate a judgment -- in a separate PAGA action involving overlapping claims.

The Court’s conclusion resolves an issue that is not uncommon in PAGA litigation where a resolution is reached in one of several separate PAGA lawsuits filed against the same employer. And it will make it easier for parties to resolve PAGA actions without fear that settlements will be toppled by other employees or their lawyers.