A California jury returned a verdict in favor of Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. last week, finding that the discount retailer’s practice of printing employee paystubs on cash register receipts did not violate California law requiring employers to provide accurate wage statements to employees. Guillen v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., case number 2:15-cv-03813, (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California).
In the class action suit, named Plaintiff, Francisca Guillen, claimed that she did not receive an itemized wage statement each pay period because Dollar Tree did not provide its 5,400 employees traditional wage statements or access to online wage statements, but required employees to print their statements from store cash registers. By contrast, Dollar Tree’s corporate employees are able to access their wage statements online from the company’s website. Dollar Tree argued that the practice was meant to provide convenient access to wage statements for store employees who may not have access to the internet or a printer at home. Furthermore, the wage statements printed by employees on cash register receipts included all information required under California law.
The Guillen decision highlights an ongoing trend of employers phasing out traditional paper wage statements in favor of electronic wage statements as more employees are paid via direct deposit or pay cards, rather than paper check.
No matter the form, wage statements provided to California employees must contain the following nine pieces of information required by Labor Code section 226(a):
(1) Gross wages earned;
(2) Total hours worked;
(3) The number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate;
(4) All deductions;
(5) Net wages earned;
(6) The inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid;
(7) The employee’s name and the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number;
(8) The name and address of the employer; and
(9) All hourly rates and the number of hours worked at each rate.
With the passage of mandatory sick leave laws, California employers must also include available sick time on the wage statement or on a separate writing provided at the time of pay. Labor Code § 246.
The Department of Labor Standards Enforcement has approved the use of electronic wage statements so long as the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The employee is able to easily access the electronic wage statements and convert the electronic statements into hard copies at no additional expense;
(2) The electronic wage statement system provides adequate safeguards for ensuring the confidentiality of employee information;
(3) The Employer retains records of the wage statements for a period of at least three years; and
(4) The employee retains the right to receive a paper wage statement upon request.
DLSE Opinion Letter No. 2006.07.06 (July 6, 2006); Derum v. Saks & Co. (S.D. Cal. 2015) 95 F. Supp.3d 1221, 1226.
Technical and strict compliance with California’s exacting wage statement requirements is necessary to avoid potentially stiff penalties and costly class action litigation. Employers that fail to provide accurate wage statements face statutory penalties of up to $4,000 per employee, plus additional civil penalties imposed on a pay period basis. Employers should revisit their wage statements to ensure strict compliance with the Labor Code.
Employers with questions regarding wage statement requirements, including options for electronic or other “non-traditional” delivery methods, may contact the authors or their usual counsel at AALRR.
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- An Early Holiday Present For Employers Facing Out Of Control Plaintiff Attorney Greed
- California’s Minimum Wage to Increase to $16.50 Per Hour January 1, 2025
- New San Diego County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- New Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- Legislation Impacting California Employee Handbook Policies for 2025
- Update on the California Health Care Minimum Wage
- Resources for California Employers to Track and Confirm Their State and Local Minimum Wage Requirements
- 11 Local Minimum Wage Ordinances Poised to Increase on July 1, 2024
- Fast Food Restaurants -- Be Prepared for a DIR Audit
- U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Proving Discrimination Claims
Popular Categories
- (37)
- (156)
- (54)
- (39)
- (25)
- (7)
- (42)
- (23)
- (15)
- (15)
- (6)
- (7)
- (6)
- (6)
- (9)
- (6)
- (4)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Eddy R. Beltran
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Lauren S. Gafa
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011