Pay Stub (Wage Statement) Requirements by State

Federal law does not require employers to give employees a pay stub.

The Fair Labor Standards Act forces employers to keep payroll records but never to deliver any of them to the worker. Every meaningful pay-stub right in the United States — every itemized statement, every per-pay-period penalty, every records-request remedy — comes from a state statute.

California's Labor Code §226 is the centerpiece. A single missing item on a wage statement carries $50 for the first violation, $100 per pay period for each subsequent violation, up to a $4,000 aggregate cap per employee, plus mandatory attorney's fees, plus a separate $750 records-request penalty under §226(f), plus a PAGA layer on top. Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021), produced a roughly $102M district-court judgment on §226 derivative theories before the 9th Circuit reversed.

Then came Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022). The California Supreme Court held that meal- and rest-break premium pay under §226.7 is "wages" — meaning a missed premium that doesn't appear on the stub is a §226 violation in its own right, and the same unpaid premium at separation triggers §203 waiting-time penalties for up to 30 days of additional pay. A non-compliant break practice now produces a four-statute cascade.

Nine states require no pay stub at all. The remaining 41 plus the District of Columbia each set their own list of required items, penalty schedules, electronic-delivery rules, and inspection-on-request remedies. This research walks the federal silence, the California §226 mechanics, the load-bearing cases, the 2024 PAGA reform, the state-by-state landscape, and the multi-state work-location framework from Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020).

Quick reference

• Federal floor (29 USC §211(c) + 29 CFR Part 516): employers must keep payroll records for three years (§516.5) and underlying time cards / wage-rate tables for two years (§516.6). There is no federal pay-stub requirement and no federal penalty for stub deficiencies.
• California (Labor Code §226 + §226.2): nine itemized items per stub, piece-rate add-ons, $50/$100/$4,000 penalty schedule, mandatory attorney's fees, a $750 records-request penalty under §226(f), a PAGA stack on top of all of it, and the Naranjo cascade for missed-break premium pay.
• Strong-statement states: New York ($250/workday + $5,000 cap under Labor Law §198(1-d)), Massachusetts (mandatory treble damages under M.G.L. c. 149 §150), the District of Columbia (3× damages + criminal exposure for willful violations), Illinois (820 ILCS 115/14 — $500/violation + 5%/month interest), plus enforceable regimes in Washington, Colorado, Oregon, Maryland (expanded October 1, 2024), Hawaii, and Connecticut.
• No-stub states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee have no statute requiring employers to furnish an itemized pay stub.
• Multi-state rule: §226 follows the employee's work location, not the employer's HQ. Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020), set the "principal place of work" / "base of operations" framework.
• 2024 PAGA reform (AB 2288 + SB 92): effective for actions filed on or after June 19, 2024 — wage-statement violations capped at $25 PAGA penalty per pay period where the employee could promptly determine the information; reasonable-steps-to-comply defense caps PAGA at 15% of penalties otherwise sought; 35% of penalties (up from 25%) flow to aggrieved employees.

Skip to the state-by-state table →

The 5 most expensive pay stub mistakes

Each pattern below has produced eight- or nine-figure exposure, named appellate authority, or both.

1. The Naranjo cascade. Missing the meal- or rest-break premium pay on a California wage statement is a §226 violation in its own right — not just a §226.7 violation. Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022), held that §226.7 premium pay is "wages" under Labor Code §200. Mechanical consequence: an employer with a non-compliant break practice faces a four-statute stack — §512 (meal-period rule) + §226.7 (premium pay) + §226 (itemization) + §203 (waiting-time penalty at separation, up to 30 days' wages) — plus PAGA and mandatory attorney's fees. The 2024 follow-up — Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., 15 Cal.5th 1056 (2024) — added an objectively reasonable good-faith defense to the §226 piece, but only to that piece. The §226.7 premium, the §203 waiting-time penalty, and the PAGA exposure remain.

2. Derivative §226 claims off underlying overtime errors. When the regular rate for FLSA overtime is miscalculated — non-discretionary bonuses excluded, shift differentials missing, piece-rate earnings not blended, two posted rates not weighted-averaged under 29 CFR §778.115 — the pay stub now violates §226(a)(2) (total hours) and §226(a)(9) (hourly rates and corresponding hours at each rate) for every affected pay period. A $50K underlying overtime bug compounds into $50K + per-pay-period statutory penalties + 30-day waiting-time at separation + PAGA + attorney's fees. Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021), produced a roughly $102M district-court judgment on this pattern before the 9th Circuit reversed. The reversal turned on technical §226(a)(9) interpretation (a retroactive bonus is not a rate "in effect" during the prior period) and an Article III standing problem on the PAGA claim — it narrowed the law, not the exposure shape.

3. Piece-rate pay stubs that don't separately compensate non-productive time. Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 864 (2013), held that piece-rate compensation pays for productive time only — rest breaks and other non-productive time must be separately compensated AND must appear as a separate line on the wage statement. California codified the rule in 2015 via AB 1513, which added Labor Code §226.2: itemized total hours of rest/recovery periods, the rate of compensation for those periods, gross wages paid for that time during the pay period, and a separate line for "other non-productive time." Trucking, agriculture, manufacturing piece-work, and commission-based retail all fail this systematically.

4. Misclassifying which state's law applies to remote workers. Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020), is the controlling answer. §226 applies to employees whose principal place of work is California, or — for interstate transportation workers and other mobile employees who don't spend a majority of time in any single state — whose base of operations is California. A Texas-headquartered employer with a California-based remote employee owes §226-compliant pay stubs for that employee. Multi-state payroll engines that apply HQ rules uniformly miss this systematically.

5. The §203 waiting-time cascade at separation. Any §226-related unpaid wages still owed when an employee separates triggers §203 waiting-time penalties — the employee's daily wage for every day the wages remain unpaid, capped at 30 days. The 2024 Naranjo follow-up provides an objectively reasonable good-faith defense to §226 statutory penalties but NOT to the §203 cascade. A terminated worker with $200 of unpaid premium pay accumulated over the prior year owes them $200 + 30 days of waiting-time + the §226 derivative statutory penalties + PAGA + attorney's fees. The waiting-time cascade is what turns small per-employee balances into high four-figure individual claims, and class-wide it scales linearly with terminated headcount.

The federal floor: recordkeeping, not pay stubs

FLSA does not require pay stubs

The load-bearing counterintuitive fact. The Fair Labor Standards Act has no requirement that employers furnish itemized wage statements to employees — paper or electronic. What it requires is that the employer keep certain records. The employee never has to see them.

29 USC §211(c):

"Every employer subject to any provision of this chapter … shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him … as the Administrator shall prescribe."

29 CFR Part 516 — the operative regulations

§516.2(a) lists the records every covered employer must maintain for each non-exempt employee:

1. Name in full and identifying symbol or number
2. Home address with ZIP code
3. Date of birth if under 19
4. Sex and occupation
5. Time of day and day of week the workweek begins
6. Regular hourly rate of pay for any workweek in which overtime is due, with the basis of pay (per hour, per day, per piece, commission) and the amount and nature of each payment excluded from the regular rate under §7(e)
7. Hours worked each workday and total each workweek
8. Total daily or weekly straight-time earnings
9. Total premium pay for overtime hours
10. Total additions to or deductions from wages each pay period
11. Total wages paid each pay period
12. Date of payment and pay period covered

§516.5 — keep payroll records for three years.

§516.6 — keep underlying time cards, work schedules, and wage-rate tables for two years.

§516.2(b) — no required form. Records can be paper, microfilm, or electronic.

The federal regime is employer-facing only. There is no requirement to deliver any of this to the employee. There is no federal penalty for omitting an item from a pay stub, because there is no federal requirement to issue a pay stub.

DOL Wage and Hour Division investigators can request the §516 records and use missing or inadequate records to invoke the Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), burden-shifting rule — but that is enforcement against unpaid wages, not pay-stub enforcement.

DOL Fact Sheet #21

The DOL's plain-English summary of §516 confirms the framework: "The Act requires no particular form for the records, but does require that the records include certain identifying information about the employee and data about the hours worked and the wages earned." No mention of furnishing the data to employees. State law fills the gap.

California Labor Code §226 — the centerpiece

California's wage-statement statute is the single most-litigated pay-stub law in the country. The plaintiffs' bar treats §226 violations as a multiplier on top of underlying wage-and-hour claims: a missing item turns a $50K unpaid-overtime claim into $50K + per-pay-period statutory penalty + waiting-time + attorney's fees + PAGA.

The nine required items — §226(a)

Every wage statement furnished with payment of wages must show:

1. Gross wages earned
2. Total hours worked (except for salaried exempt employees)
3. Piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece rate (for piece-rate employees)
4. All deductions — deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item
5. Net wages earned
6. Inclusive dates of the pay period
7. Name of the employee and only the last four digits of their SSN or an employee ID number
8. Name and address of the legal entity that is the employer — a PO box alone is not enough
9. All applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period AND the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate

For piece-rate employees, §226.2 imposes additional itemization: total hours of compensable rest and recovery periods, the rate of compensation for those periods, gross wages paid for those periods during the pay period, and a separate listing for "other non-productive time."

Beyond §226 — §246(i) sick-leave-balance disclosure

California layers a second pay-stub disclosure requirement on top of §226. Labor Code §246(i) requires the employer to provide each employee, each pay period, the amount of paid sick leave available — either on the wage statement itself OR in a separate written document furnished with the paycheck. Under California's Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (Labor Code §245 et seq.), employees accrue 1 hour per 30 worked, with a balance cap of 80 hours after the 2024 amendments. Each pay period the running balance must update; a static placeholder is not enough.

§246(i) is enforced separately from §226. Failure to disclose is not a §226(a) violation and the §226(e) penalty schedule does not apply. But §248.5 provides for treble damages or $250 minimum, plus a private right of action with attorney's fees.

The penalty schedule — §226(e)

An employee who suffers injury as a result of a knowing and intentional §226(a) failure may recover the greater of actual damages or:

• $50 for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs
• $100 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation
• Up to an aggregate cap of $4,000 per employee
• Plus mandatory costs and reasonable attorney's fees

Separately, §226(c) gives current and former employees the right to inspect or receive copies of payroll records within 21 days of request. Failure triggers a $750 penalty under §226(f), payable to the employee or the Labor Commissioner, plus injunctive relief.

The $4,000 cap is per employee, not per case. In a class of 1,000 employees, the exposure ceiling is $4M before attorney's fees — and PAGA penalties layer on top.

"Knowing and intentional"

§226(e)(3): "a 'knowing and intentional failure' does not include an isolated and unintentional payroll error due to a clerical or inadvertent mistake." Courts have read the standard broadly. It does not require malicious intent; an employer who knows what its payroll system is doing and uses it consistently across a workforce meets the standard even if it believes in good faith that the practice is legal.

The 2024 follow-up — Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., 15 Cal.5th 1056 (2024) — added an objectively reasonable, good-faith defense to §226(e): if the employer held an objectively reasonable belief that its pay stubs complied, statutory penalties under §226(e) are not available. The defense is affirmative; the burden runs on the employer; and "objectively reasonable" is a high bar where the legal question was clearly settled. It does not soften the underlying §226.7 premium, the §203 waiting-time penalty, or PAGA exposure.

The injury requirement — Price v. Starbucks

§226(e) requires the employee to show injury from the deficient statement. Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2011), established that deprivation of the §226(a) information alone is not a cognizable injury — the plaintiff must allege a concrete consequence (a mathematical computation required to verify wages, inability to reconcile gross-to-net, etc.).

The 2013 amendment to §226(e)(2)(B) created a deemed-injury rule: an employee is deemed to suffer injury if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as to specific items (hours worked, hourly rates, gross/net wages, deductions) and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine the required item from the wage statement alone. The injury element is therefore much easier to plead post-2013 than under Price, but it still exists and remains the basis for pleading-stage attacks on threadbare complaints.

Standalone vs. derivative §226 claims

The most important practical distinction in California wage-and-hour litigation:

• A standalone §226 claim — the wage statement is defective even though wages were paid correctly. The statement omits the employer's address, lists only a PO box, doesn't show piece-rate units, doesn't separately list two rates of pay.
• A derivative §226 claim — the wage statement is defective because the underlying wages were wrong. Unpaid overtime didn't appear because it wasn't paid; missed-break premium didn't appear because it wasn't paid; off-the-clock hours didn't appear because they weren't recorded.

Derivative claims are the multiplier. Every $1 of unpaid overtime becomes $1 + $50/$100-per-pay-period §226 penalty + waiting-time penalty under §203 + PAGA. The penalty stack is why a $50K unpaid-wage exposure routinely turns into a $5M+ class settlement.

Things California employers consistently miss

1. Missed-break premium pay buried under a generic line. After Naranjo, §226.7 premium pay is wages. If the employer pays it but labels it as a generic adjustment, the stub still may not let the employee promptly identify what was paid and why.
2. Multi-rate workers shown at one blended rate. §226(a)(9) requires all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding hours worked at each rate. Shift differentials, skill premiums, on-call rates, and blended overtime all need rate-and-hour detail.
3. Piece-rate workers without separate non-productive-time lines. Bluford and §226.2 require separate itemization for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time. Piece-rate stubs that show only productive piece earnings miss the California-specific add-ons.
4. Statutory deductions aggregated with voluntary deductions. §226(a)(4) lets voluntary deductions made on written employee authorization be aggregated, but tax withholding, garnishments, child support, state PFML employee contributions, and similar mandatory deductions should be itemized separately.
5. Full SSN or PO-box-only employer address. §226(a)(7) permits only the last four digits of the SSN or an employee ID. §226(a)(8) requires the legal employer's name and address; a PO box alone is a common defect.

Named cases and settlements

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946)

The doctrinal foundation. When the employer fails to keep adequate records, the employee can carry the FLSA burden of proof by producing "sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference." The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed. Inadequate §516 records flip the burden onto the employer.

Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021)

The single most-cited California wage-statement case of the last decade, and one of the most-cited examples of why case captions without procedural history mislead. The district court entered a bench-trial judgment of approximately $102M in 2019 on two §226 theories:

1. Walmart's "MyShare" bonus — a quarterly performance incentive — triggered a retroactive overtime adjustment for the prior quarter. The pay stub showed the lump-sum adjustment as "OVERTIME/INCT" without listing the hourly rate for the adjusted period. Plaintiff theory: §226(a)(9) violation because the rate "in effect" during the prior period wasn't shown.
2. The Statement of Final Pay issued to terminated employees mid-pay-period omitted the pay-period dates required by §226(a)(6).

The Ninth Circuit (May 28, 2021) reversed both §226 theories. On theory 1: the MyShare adjustment is not a rate "in effect" during the pay period; it's a retroactive bonus. §226(a)(9) doesn't require listing it. On theory 2: §226 permits employers to furnish a separate final wage statement covering the terminal partial pay period at the end of the next regular pay cycle. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the PAGA portion on Article III standing grounds — the plaintiff couldn't prove personal injury for the representative claims.

The case is routinely cited in plaintiffs' briefs for the proposition that Walmart "paid $172M for pay stub violations." Both the dollar figure and the disposition are wrong. The district court figure was ~$102M, and Walmart won on appeal. The case today stands as defense-favorable precedent on (a) what counts as an hourly rate "in effect" and (b) the permissibility of separate final wage statements.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022)

The single most consequential §226 ruling of the post-2020 era. California Supreme Court, May 23, 2022.

Background: Naranjo was a security guard fired for taking an off-duty meal break in violation of Spectrum's on-duty-meal-break policy. He brought a putative class action alleging missed meal-break premiums under §226.7.

The question on appeal: when an employer fails to pay the §226.7 premium (one hour's wages for each day a meal or rest period is not provided), does that omission also give rise to (a) a §226 wage-statement violation (premium not itemized) and (b) a §203 waiting-time penalty (premium not paid at separation)?

Held: yes to both. Meal-break premium pay is "wages" under Labor Code §200. Because it's wages:

• It must be reported on the employee's pay stub under §226; failure to do so is a §226 violation in its own right.
• It must be paid promptly at separation under §§201–203; failure to pay triggers up to 30 days of waiting-time penalties under §203.

This is the cascading-violation rule that turns every missed-break case into a three-statute exposure (§226.7 + §226 + §203). An employer that knew about missed-break premium but failed to itemize it still faces §226 liability even if the premium was paid; an employer that never paid the premium faces all three penalties stacked.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 15 Cal.5th 1056 (2024)

On remand, the California Supreme Court (May 6, 2024) held that §226(e) statutory penalties are subject to an objectively reasonable, good-faith defense: if the employer held an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that its pay stubs complied, statutory penalties under §226(e) are not available. The good-faith defense applies only to §226 penalties, not to the underlying §226.7 premium or §203 waiting-time penalties — and the defense's "objectively reasonable" prong is a high bar where the legal question was clearly settled.

Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020)

The California Supreme Court's controlling answer on when §226 applies to multi-state employees. Three plaintiffs: a United pilot and two flight attendants, all California residents who spent less than 17–20% of their flight time within California.

Question: do California's wage-statement laws apply to interstate transportation workers who do not work a majority of their time in any one state?

Held: California §226 applies when California is the employee's principal place of work. For most employees, that means the majority-of-time-in-California test. For interstate transportation workers who don't spend a majority of time in any single state, the test is the "base of work operations" rule — §226 applies if the employee performs at least some work in California and California serves as the physical location where the employee presents to begin work (the pilot's designated home-base airport).

The companion case — Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 762 (2020), decided the same day — extended the framework to other §226 contexts. A California-headquartered employer with a remote employee working entirely from Nevada is NOT subject to §226 for that employee. A Texas-headquartered employer with a California-based remote employee IS.

Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 864 (2013)

The controlling California Court of Appeal decision on piece-rate rest-break compensation and the wage-statement consequence. Piece-rate compensation pays for productive time only; mandated rest breaks and other non-productive time must be separately compensated, and that compensation must appear as a separate line on the wage statement. The decision, combined with Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 (2013), catalyzed a wave of piece-rate class actions and the 2015 statutory amendment (AB 1513, codified as Labor Code §226.2), which codified separate rest-period itemization and a "safe harbor" back-pay election period.

Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp., 5 Cal.App.5th 926 (2016)

Security-guard wage-and-hour class action covering approximately 13,500 non-exempt officers in California. Allegations: missed meal/rest breaks plus non-compliant wage statements (specific §226(a) items missing from all class members' statements). The trial court certified the class, then decertified after Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). The Court of Appeal reversed the decertification, holding that the trial court misapplied Dukes on statistical evidence. The case settled in January 2019 against G4S Secure Solutions (formerly Wackenhut) for between $100M and $130M.

The case stands for two propositions: (1) §226 violations that apply uniformly across a workforce are classically suited to class certification, and (2) representative statistical evidence is permissible for §226 damages even after Dukes.

Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020)

Walmart's California-based long-haul truck drivers' class action. A November 2016 jury awarded $54.6M total, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in January 2020. The drivers were paid on an activity-based structure (per-mile + per-task) that excluded compensation for pre-trip inspections, post-trip inspections, 10-minute rest breaks, and 10-hour layovers. The §226 derivative theory carried significant weight: because those compensable activities were not paid for, the wage statements necessarily omitted them — turning every uncompensated activity into a separate §226 violation per pay period.

What "knowing and intentional" looks like in practice

Practitioners reading the §226(e)(3) "clerical or inadvertent mistake" carve-out should understand it narrowly:

• An employer who knows its payroll system aggregates two rates of pay into one and chooses to keep the practice meets the knowing-and-intentional standard, even if it believes the practice is legal.
• An employer who once misprints a stub because of a software glitch and corrects it the next pay period falls inside the carve-out.
• An employer who runs a workforce-wide policy that fails §226 falls outside. The "isolated" element of the carve-out cannot be satisfied by a practice applied uniformly.

The 2024 Naranjo good-faith defense changes the analysis at the penalty stage: even an employer who meets the knowing-and-intentional standard may avoid §226(e) statutory penalties if its compliance belief was objectively reasonable. The §226 finding stands; the dollar exposure can be cut to zero on the §226(e) line.

State-by-state table

This table covers every state and DC. Citations go to the state legislature, agency, or Cornell LII / Justia mirror.

State	Stub required?	Required items	Notable	Citation
Alabama	No	—	No statute	—
Alaska	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net, pay period	Itemized	AS §23.10.060
Arizona	Yes	Gross, hours, deductions, net, pay period	Up to $250 / violation	A.R.S. §23-353
Arkansas	No	—	No statute	—
California	Yes	9 items + piece-rate	$50/$100/$4,000 + PAGA + §246(i) sick-leave balance	Lab. Code §226
Colorado	Yes	Gross, withholdings, net, pay-period dates, employee name + last-4 SSN/ID, employer name + address	CDLE Wage Protection Rules + leave-balance disclosure (effective Feb 1, 2026)	C.R.S. §8-4-103(4)
Connecticut	Yes	Hours, gross with OT separate, itemized deductions, net	Up to $300 / violation + criminal exposure for willful repeat	Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-13a
Delaware	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	19 Del. C. §1108
DC	Yes	Date, gross, hours, deductions, net, hourly rate	3× damages + criminal up to $10,000 / 6 months for willful	D.C. Code §32-1008
Florida	No	—	No statute	—
Georgia	No	—	No statute	—
Hawaii	Yes	Straight-time, deductions, piece rate (if applicable), hourly rate / hours / overtime	Electronic requires written consent (opt-in)	HRS §388-7
Idaho	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	Idaho Code §45-609
Illinois	Yes	Hours, rate, OT, gross, deductions, YTD totals	$500 / violation + 5%/month interest on unpaid wages	820 ILCS 115/10
Indiana	Yes	Hours, wages paid, deductions	Spare itemization; no per-violation schedule	Ind. Code §22-2-2-8
Iowa	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	Iowa Code §91A.6
Kansas	Yes	Rate, hours, deductions	Itemized	K.S.A. §44-320
Kentucky	Yes	Rate, hours, deductions, net	Itemized	KRS §337.070
Louisiana	No	—	No statute	—
Maine	Yes	Date, hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	26 M.R.S. §665
Maryland	Yes	Expanded Oct 1, 2024 — employer name/address/phone, pay-period dates, hours, rates, gross/net, deductions, additional bases, piece-rate units	New itemization regime	Md. Lab. & Empl. §3-504
Massachusetts	Yes	Employer name, employee name, day/month/year, hours, hourly rate, deductions	Mandatory treble damages under §150 + mandatory attorney's fees	M.G.L. c. 149 §148
Michigan	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions	Itemized	MCL §408.479
Minnesota	Yes	Pay-period dates, hours, rate, gross/net, deductions; WTPA-style new-hire notice	Expanded 2023 + 2024	Minn. Stat. §181.032
Mississippi	No	—	No statute	—
Missouri	Yes	Hours, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	Mo. Rev. Stat. §290.080
Montana	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	MCA §39-3-101
Nebraska	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	Neb. Rev. Stat. §48-1230
Nevada	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net (industry-layered carve-outs)	NRS §608.110	NRS §608.110
New Hampshire	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	N.H. Rev. Stat. §275:49
New Jersey	Yes	Itemized statement; payroll record retention; rate, hours, gross, deductions	Up to $1,000 + 10-90 days imprisonment for willful	N.J.S.A. §34:11-4.6
New Mexico	Yes	Pay-period dates, hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	N.M. Stat. §50-4-2
New York	Yes	Pay-period dates, employee + employer name, employer address + phone, rates and basis, gross, deductions, allowances, net, regular + overtime hours and rates for non-exempt	$250 / workday + $5,000 cap under Labor Law §198(1-d); 2014 WTPA amendments effective Feb 27, 2015	Lab. Law §195(3)
North Carolina	Yes	Itemized deductions, payment date, pay-period covered	Deduction-focused; spare itemization	N.C. Gen. Stat. §95-25.13
North Dakota	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	N.D.C.C. §34-14-04.1
Ohio	No	—	No statute	—
Oklahoma	Yes	Pay-period, hours, rate, deductions, net	Itemized	Okla. Stat. tit. 40 §165.2
Oregon	Yes	Payment date, pay-period dates, employee + employer name, employer address, rate(s), regular + overtime rate, hours at each rate, gross, net, deductions, allowances, piece-rate units (agriculture)	SB 906 (effective Jan 1, 2026) — at-hire disclosure of all payroll codes + benefit deductions + applicable rates; BOLI $500 / violation, no private right of action	ORS §652.610
Pennsylvania	Yes	Wages earned, hours, rate, deductions, net	25% liquidated damages or $500 + attorney's fees	43 P.S. §260.4
Rhode Island	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	R.I.G.L. §28-14-2.2
South Carolina	Yes	Gross, deductions, net	Itemized	S.C. Code §41-10-30
South Dakota	No	—	No statute	—
Tennessee	No	—	No statute	—
Texas	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, units (piece-rate); no agency enforces §62.003; private action only	Thin statute, weak enforcement; signature required	Tex. Lab. Code §62.003
Utah	Yes	Pay-period dates, hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	Utah Code §34-28-3
Vermont	Yes	Pay-period, hours, rate, deductions	Itemized	21 V.S.A. §342(c)
Virginia	Yes	Itemization required since 2020 (HB 123 expansion) — name, hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Expanded 2020	Va. Code §40.1-29
Washington	Yes	Pay basis (hours or days), rate(s), gross, all deductions	Electronic permitted if accessible and printable on payday	WAC 296-126-040
West Virginia	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	W. Va. Code §21-5-9
Wisconsin	Yes	Hours, rate, gross, deductions, net	Itemized	Wis. Stat. §103.457
Wyoming	Yes	Hours, rate, deductions	Itemized	Wyo. Stat. §27-4-101

The nine no-stub states

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee have no statute requiring employers to furnish itemized pay stubs to employees. In these states an employee has no statutory right to receive a pay stub. The employer must still maintain payroll records under federal law (29 CFR §516) and would still face liability for unpaid wages under FLSA and any applicable state minimum-wage law, but a wage-statement-only claim has no statutory hook.

Strong-statement state deep-dives

New York — Labor Law §195(3) and §198(1-d). A pay statement must accompany every payment of wages. Required items: dates of work covered, employee name, employer name + address + phone, rate(s) of pay and basis (hourly, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission), gross wages, deductions, allowances claimed (tip, meal, lodging), net wages, and for non-exempt employees the regular hourly rate(s), overtime rate(s), regular hours worked, and overtime hours worked. Penalty schedule under the Wage Theft Prevention Act as amended December 29, 2014 (effective February 27, 2015): $250 per workday of violation, capped at $5,000 per employee, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The §198 cause of action is direct — no injury-or-knowing-and-intentional gate. NY is in some ways stricter than CA at the per-employee level (no injury requirement) and weaker at the aggregate level (lower cap).

Massachusetts — M.G.L. c. 149 §148 + §150. A pay statement is required every payday: "the name of the employer, the name of the employee, the day, month, year, number of hours worked, and hourly rate, and the amounts of deductions or increases made for the pay period." §150 provides for mandatory treble damages on unpaid wages plus attorney's fees — no good-faith defense. The treble-damages remedy is mandatory once a violation is shown, which makes Massachusetts wage-statement litigation unusually plaintiff-favorable.

Washington — WAC 296-126-040. Employer must furnish, each pay period, an itemized statement showing pay basis (hours or days), rate(s) of pay, gross wages, and all deductions. Electronic statements permitted if employees can access and print on payday. Both the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) premium (active since January 2019, RCW Title 50A) and the WA Cares Fund premium (active since July 1, 2023, RCW 50B.04) appear as deductions on the stub under the existing "all deductions" requirement.

Colorado — C.R.S. §8-4-103(4). Itemized statement on each regular payday showing gross, withholdings and deductions, net, pay-period dates, employee name, last four of SSN or employee ID, and employer name and address. The COMPS Order (Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order) layers industry-specific items. The CDLE Wage Protection Rules expansion (effective February 1, 2026) adds leave-balance recordkeeping for vacation/PTO and HFWA sick leave; employers may use the pay stub as the disclosure vehicle for the running balance.

Oregon — ORS §652.610 (SB 906 expansion effective Jan 1, 2026). Itemized statement at each pay period: payment date; pay-period dates; employee name; employer name and business address; rate(s); regular hourly rate, overtime rate, and hours at each; gross and net wages; amount and purpose of each deduction; allowances claimed; piece-rate units for agricultural workers. SB 906 (signed May 28, 2025) amends ORS §652.610 to require employers, at time of hire, to disclose all payroll codes used, all benefit deductions and contributions, and all pay rates the employee may be eligible for. Civil penalty up to $500 per violation by BOLI; no private right of action.

Maryland — Md. Lab. & Empl. §3-504. Expanded effective October 1, 2024. Prior law required only notification of pay rate and deductions. New requirements: written or electronic pay statement each pay period showing employer's name (as registered), address, telephone; date of payment; pay-period begin/end dates; hours worked (except for exempt employees); rates of pay; gross and net pay; itemized deductions; additional pay (bonuses, commissions); and for piece-rate employees the applicable piece rate and units completed.

Illinois — 820 ILCS 115/10 (Wage Payment and Collection Act). Pay statement at each regular pay period showing hours worked (hourly employees), rate, overtime pay and overtime hours, gross, all deductions, and year-to-date totals of gross and deductions. Penalty under 820 ILCS 115/14: civil penalty up to $500 per violation payable to the Illinois Department of Labor; private right of action for damages, costs, attorney's fees, and 5% per month interest on unpaid wages. The IL Department of Labor received direct enforcement authority effective August 1, 2025.

Connecticut — Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-13a. Record of hours worked, gross earnings showing straight time and overtime as separate entries, itemized deductions, and net earnings each payment. §31-69(a) provides up to $300 per violation; §31-69b adds criminal exposure of up to $5,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment for willful repeat violations. Prosecution is rare; the criminal penalty is on the books.

District of Columbia — D.C. Code §32-1008 and §32-1011. Itemized statement at each wage payment showing date, gross, hours (non-exempt), all deductions, net, and hourly rate (if applicable). §32-1011 provides liquidated damages of 3× unpaid wages + civil penalty up to $500 per employee per violation + criminal penalty up to $10,000 + 6 months for willful violations. DC's penalty schedule is among the harshest in the country.

Hawaii — HRS §388-7. Written notice at each payment of wages: straight-time pay, total deductions and the purpose of each, applicable piece rate (if applicable), and for hourly employees the rate per hour, hours worked, and overtime pay. Electronic pay statements require the employee's written consent (opt-in). Penalty under HRS §388-10: fines plus damages, costs, attorney's fees.

The Texas anomaly — statute without enforcement

Texas requires a written earnings statement covering each pay period under Tex. Lab. Code §62.003. Required items: hours worked, rate of pay, total pay, deductions and their purpose, units produced (piece-rate). May be in any form (check voucher, separate paper, electronic) and must be signed by the employer or the employer's agent.

There is no agency charged with enforcement of §62.003. The Texas Workforce Commission's Wage and Hour Department enforces the Texas Payday Law (Chapter 61) — final-pay rules — but not the §62.003 itemization rule. Texas employers have a statutory pay-stub requirement with effectively no enforcement mechanism short of private litigation, and no statutory per-violation penalty schedule.

Industry-specific carve-outs

Piece-rate workers (California §226.2)

For piece-rate employees, the §226(a) nine-item list expands materially. §226.2 requires the wage statement to itemize:

• Total hours of compensable rest and recovery periods
• The rate of compensation for those periods
• Gross wages paid for the rest/recovery periods during the pay period
• A separate listing of total hours of "other non-productive time" and the rate paid for it

The 2015 enactment (AB 1513) followed Bluford v. Safeway Stores and Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors; it offered a "safe harbor" back-pay election period that has since closed. Today, piece-rate employers in California must itemize per §226.2 prospectively, with the standard §226(e) penalty schedule applicable.

Agricultural workers

Several states (Oregon, Washington, Hawaii) require itemization of piece-rate units and rates specifically for agricultural workers. Hours worked at each rate is the load-bearing item — agricultural piecework that doesn't reconcile gross-to-hours-at-rate is the textbook §226(a)(9) (or state analog) defect.

Trucking and long-haul drivers (the Ridgeway pattern)

Activity-based pay structures (per-mile + per-task + bonuses for stops, layovers, inspections) routinely fail the rate-times-hours reconciliation that §226(a)(9) and parallel state statutes require. Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020), affirmed a $54.6M California-driver verdict on this pattern. The drivers were paid for trips and tasks but not for pre-trip inspections, post-trip inspections, rest breaks, or 10-hour layovers — and the stubs necessarily omitted those uncompensated hours.

Healthcare and 12-hour-shift industries

§226(a)(9) requires every applicable hourly rate in effect during the pay period and the corresponding hours at each. Two-tier rates (base rate + shift differential), three-tier rates (base + differential + on-call), and pyramiding rates (premium pay layered on overtime) all need to itemize separately. A "blended rate" line that aggregates two underlying rates fails §226(a)(9) directly.

Electronic vs. paper pay stubs

California — opt-out regime (DLSE 2006 opinion)

Labor Code §226(a) requires wage statements to be furnished "in writing." A 2006 DLSE Opinion Letter on Electronic Itemized Wage Statements (hosted at the DIR with the file path 2006-07-06.pdf) established that electronic delivery is permissible if:

1. The employee may elect to receive paper wage statements at any time
2. The statements contain all §226(a) information
3. The statements are available on a secure website no later than pay day
4. Access is controlled by unique employee identification numbers and confidential PINs
5. The employee retains the ability to easily access the information and convert electronic statements to hard copies at no expense

This is an opt-out regime: electronic is the default if the employer chooses; the employee must affirmatively elect paper. DLSE opinion letters are interpretations, not binding law, but courts have generally followed this framework.

Other state approaches

• Texas — §62.003 explicitly permits electronic earnings statements. No opt-out right.
• Washington — WAC 296-126-040 permits electronic if employees can access and print on payday.
• New York — Labor Law §195(3) permits electronic delivery under specific conditions (employee access at work, ability to print without charge).
• Hawaii — HRS §388-7 requires written consent of the employee for electronic delivery (opt-in, not opt-out).
• Massachusetts — c. 149 §148 permits electronic; no explicit statutory opt-out, but the practical access/print rule applies.

The opt-in vs. opt-out distinction is the load-bearing one for multi-state employers. California, Texas, and Washington default to electronic-with-opt-out. Hawaii is opt-in. The safest multi-state practice is opt-in plus paper on request.

Multi-state and remote workers

The Ward framework

Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020), set the controlling rule. §226 applies to:

1. Employees who work the majority of their time in California; OR
2. Interstate transportation workers and other mobile employees who don't spend a majority of time in any single state, when their base of work operations is California

Concrete applications:

• California HQ + remote employee in Texas working entirely from Texas → §226 does NOT apply. The Texas employee receives the Tex. Lab. Code §62.003 statement.
• Texas HQ + remote employee in California working entirely from California → §226 DOES apply. The California employee receives the §226-compliant statement, even though the employer is headquartered in a thin-statute state.
• 60/40 split between two states → §226 applies to the state where the majority is worked; the minority-state statute also applies for hours worked there.
• Truly mobile employee with no fixed work location → base-of-operations test; usually the location the employee reports to for assignment.

For HR systems, the practical implication is that work location, not employer location or payroll location, drives pay-stub requirements. Multi-state payroll engines must apply §226 (and state analogs) per-employee based on actual work location.

Combination rule

A multi-state employee may receive a pay stub that complies with multiple states' rules simultaneously — there is no inherent conflict in over-disclosure. The safest design: California-compliant stub for every employee, even where state law requires less. This is the "standardize to California" recipe that recurs across labor-law topics.

The PAGA layer and the 2024 reform

California's Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §2698 et seq.) lets an aggrieved employee sue on behalf of themselves and other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations — including §226 violations — that would otherwise be recoverable only by the state. PAGA is the multiplier that turns a $4,000-per-employee §226 cap into class exposure measured in millions.

Pre-reform defaults

The default PAGA penalty for a Labor Code violation has historically been $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for subsequent violations. Those defaults remain in Labor Code §2699, subject to the new caps in §2699(f)(2).

2024 PAGA reform — AB 2288 and SB 92

Signed July 1, 2024. Applies to civil actions and LWDA notices filed on or after June 19, 2024. The reform is not retroactive to actions filed before that date. Key changes for §226 exposure:

• Wage-statement violations that do not cause harm to the plaintiff are capped at $25 PAGA penalty per pay period where the employee could promptly and easily determine the required information from the stub alone.
• Violations lasting 30 days or less (or four consecutive weekly pay periods) and based on isolated, non-recurring events are capped at $50 per aggrieved employee per pay period.
• Reasonable-steps-to-comply defense: if the employer demonstrates it took all reasonable steps to be in compliance prior to receipt of a PAGA notice or records request, PAGA penalties are capped at 15% of the penalties otherwise sought.
• Prospective-compliance defense: if the employer takes all reasonable steps to be prospectively in compliance within 60 days of receiving a PAGA notice, penalties are capped at 30%.
• Malicious / recidivist multiplier: penalty raised to $200 per pay period where the conduct was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive, or where the LWDA or a court has determined the same practice unlawful within the preceding five years.
• Personal-experience requirement: the plaintiff must personally have experienced each Labor Code violation they seek to recover on a representative basis — codifying Magadia-style standing rules at the state-court level.
• Employee share increased: 35% (up from 25%) of all penalties go to the aggrieved employees; the rest goes to the LWDA.
• Injunctive relief: now available as a remedy.

The 2024 reforms substantially blunt the worst PAGA exposure patterns but do not eliminate PAGA. A non-compliant employer still faces the §226(e) statutory penalties ($4,000-per-employee cap) plus the reduced PAGA layer plus mandatory attorney's fees.

Recent changes (2024–2026)

• Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., 15 Cal.5th 1056 (May 6, 2024) — California Supreme Court held that §226(e) statutory penalties are subject to an objectively reasonable, good-faith defense. The defense applies only to §226 penalties — not to the underlying §226.7 premium or §203 waiting-time penalties.
• PAGA reform — AB 2288 and SB 92 (effective June 19, 2024) — caps on wage-statement PAGA penalties, reasonable-steps-to-comply and prospective-compliance defenses, increased employee share to 35%, injunctive relief, personal-experience requirement.
• Maryland Md. Lab. & Empl. §3-504 expansion (effective October 1, 2024) — new itemization requirements for employer name/address/phone, pay-period dates, hours, rates, gross/net, deductions, additional bases, and piece-rate units.
• Washington SHB 1308 — personnel-file access for former employees (signed May 13, 2025, effective July 27, 2025) — extends file-access rights to former employees within three years of separation; production within 21 calendar days; graduated statutory damages ($250 / $500 / $1,000) and a $500 catch-all penalty. Adjacent to the WAC 296-126-040 stub-disclosure regime.
• Oregon SB 906 (signed May 28, 2025, effective January 1, 2026) — amends ORS §652.610 to require employers, at time of hire, to disclose all payroll codes, all benefit deductions and contributions, and all pay rates the employee may be eligible for. BOLI civil penalty up to $500 per violation; no private right of action.
• Illinois IDOL direct enforcement (effective August 1, 2025) — the Illinois Department of Labor can now file enforcement actions directly under the Wage Payment and Collection Act. IWPCA recordkeeping amendments extended pay-record retention to three years for both current and former employees, with 21-day response on records requests.
• Colorado CDLE Wage Protection Rules expansion (effective February 1, 2026) — leave-balance recordkeeping for vacation/PTO and HFWA sick leave; employers may use the pay stub as the disclosure vehicle for the running balance. Records retained for two years per employee.

FAQ

Does federal law require employers to give employees a pay stub?

No. The FLSA (29 USC §211(c) and 29 CFR Part 516) requires employers to keep payroll records for three years and time/wage-rate records for two years, but it does not require any of those records to be delivered to the employee. Every meaningful pay-stub right in the United States comes from a state statute. The DOL's Fact Sheet #21 confirms the framework.

What states have no pay-stub requirement?

Nine states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee — have no statute requiring employers to furnish itemized pay stubs to employees. In those states an employer can lawfully pay wages without delivering any wage statement, though §516 recordkeeping under federal law still applies.

What are the nine items required on a California pay stub?

Labor Code §226(a) requires (1) gross wages, (2) total hours worked (except for salaried exempt employees), (3) piece-rate units and the applicable piece rate, (4) all deductions, (5) net wages, (6) inclusive pay-period dates, (7) employee name and the last four digits of SSN or an employee ID, (8) 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 hours at each rate. §226.2 adds piece-rate-specific items.

What are the §226 penalties?

$50 for the first pay period in which a violation occurs, $100 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, capped at $4,000 per employee in aggregate, plus mandatory costs and reasonable attorney's fees. §226(c) gives current and former employees the right to inspect or copy payroll records within 21 days of request; failure triggers a separate $750 penalty under §226(f). PAGA penalties layer on top.

What is the Naranjo cascade?

Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022), held that meal- and rest-break premium pay under §226.7 is "wages" under Labor Code §200. As a result, an unpaid premium that does not appear on the stub is a §226 violation in its own right, and an unpaid premium at separation triggers up to 30 days of waiting-time penalties under §203. The 2024 follow-up (Naranjo II, 15 Cal.5th 1056) added an objectively reasonable good-faith defense to §226(e) penalties — but only to that piece of the cascade.

Which state's pay-stub law applies to a remote employee?

The employee's work-location state, not the employer's HQ state. Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020), set the framework: §226 applies when California is the employee's principal place of work, or — for interstate transportation workers and other mobile employees — when California is the base of work operations. A Texas-headquartered employer with a California-based remote employee owes that employee a §226-compliant stub.

Are electronic pay stubs legal?

Yes in most states, with conditions. California's DLSE 2006 opinion letter permits electronic delivery if the employee can elect paper, all §226(a) items are present, statements are available no later than payday, access is controlled by unique IDs and PINs, and printable copies are available at no cost. Hawaii requires the employee's written consent for electronic delivery (opt-in). Texas, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York permit electronic with access-and-print provisions but no opt-out right. The opt-in vs. opt-out distinction matters for multi-state payroll design.

How did the 2024 PAGA reform change wage-statement exposure?

AB 2288 and SB 92 (effective for actions filed on or after June 19, 2024) cap PAGA penalties for wage-statement violations at $25 per pay period when the employee could promptly determine the required information from the stub, cap penalties for isolated/non-recurring violations at $50 per pay period, and create reasonable-steps-to-comply (15% cap) and prospective-compliance (30% cap) defenses. The §226(e) statutory penalty schedule and the $4,000-per-employee cap are unchanged; the PAGA layer that compounds it has been narrowed but not eliminated.

If you discover you've been doing this wrong

1. Audit the current stub against the applicable state's required items. For California, walk the nine §226(a) items plus §226.2 piece-rate items plus §246(i) sick-leave-balance disclosure. For New York, walk the §195(3) list including regular and overtime rates and hours at each. Document the gaps in writing — the audit memo is the foundation of the good-faith defense if a §226(e) claim follows.

2. Identify which violations are standalone vs. derivative. A standalone violation is a stub defect with underlying wages paid correctly (PO-box-only employer address, missing piece-rate units, two rates aggregated to one); a derivative violation is a stub defect because the underlying wages were wrong (unpaid overtime, missed-break premiums, off-the-clock minutes). Derivative violations carry the §226 + §203 + PAGA + fee stack and are the larger exposure.

3. Fix the stub prospectively and document the change. Issue revised pay statements going forward that include every required item. Keep the prior version of the stub and the redesigned version in a labeled file; this is what an "objectively reasonable, good-faith belief" defense looks like in evidence under Naranjo II.

4. Pay any underlying wage shortfalls promptly. If a derivative §226 violation traces back to unpaid overtime, missed-break premium, or off-the-clock minutes, calculate the back-pay and issue it. In California, premature back-pay does not eliminate §226 liability (because the violation was contemporaneous with the original stub) but it stops the §203 clock for any separated employee and demonstrates affirmative compliance steps for the PAGA reasonable-steps defense.

5. Engage counsel before the threshold becomes a class. When the affected population crosses 50 employees or the lookback exceeds one year, the PAGA exposure even under the 2024 reforms can outpace the §226(e) statutory cap. The reasonable-steps and prospective-compliance defenses require fact development and a paper trail; counsel-supervised remediation produces the strongest record.

The bottom line

Pay-stub compliance fails in two structural ways. The first is derivative: an underlying wage error (overtime regular-rate miscalculation, missed-break premium, off-the-clock minutes) flows into the wage statement and produces a §226 violation per pay period per employee, then cascades through §203 and PAGA. The second is standalone: the employer issues a stub that meets the state's required items inconsistently — a PO-box-only employer address, two rates collapsed to one, piece-rate non-productive time not separately itemized — even when the underlying wages are correct. Both classes scale linearly with workforce size; both compound with mandatory attorney's fees; and the highest-leverage compliance move is to standardize every pay stub the company issues to California's §226(a) nine-item schedule plus §226.2 piece-rate items, regardless of the employee's actual work-location state.

Sources

Federal

• 29 USC §211(c) — FLSA recordkeeping: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/211
• 29 CFR Part 516 — recordkeeping regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-516
• DOL Fact Sheet #21 (recordkeeping): https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/21-flsa-recordkeeping

State

• California Labor Code §226: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=226.&lawCode=LAB
• California Labor Code §226.2: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=226.2.&lawCode=LAB
• California Labor Code §246: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=246.&lawCode=LAB
• California DLSE 2006 Electronic Itemized Wage Statements Opinion Letter: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/2006-07-06.pdf
• California DLSE Opinion Letter index: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/OpinionLetters-byDate.htm
• California PAGA reform — Governor's signing announcement: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/07/01/governor-newsom-signs-paga-reform/
• New York Labor Law §195: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/195
• New York Labor Law §198: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/198
• New York DOL — Wage Theft Prevention Act: https://dol.ny.gov/wage-theft-and-labor-standards-law
• New York DOL — WTPA fact sheet P715: https://dol.ny.gov/p715-wage-theft-prevention-act
• Massachusetts M.G.L. c. 149 §148: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section148
• Massachusetts M.G.L. c. 149 §150: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section150
• Illinois 820 ILCS 115/10 + 115/14: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2402
• Washington WAC 296-126-040: https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=296-126-040
• Colorado C.R.S. §8-4-103: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-8/labor-i-department-of-labor-and-employment/wages/article-4/
• Colorado CDLE Wage Protection Rules: https://cdle.colorado.gov/dlss/labor-laws-by-topic/wage-and-hour-laws-including-paid-sick-leave
• Oregon ORS §652.610: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors652.html
• Pennsylvania 43 P.S. §260.4: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1961&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=329
• Hawaii HRS §388-7: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol07_Ch0346-0398/HRS0388/HRS_0388-.htm
• Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-13a: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm
• District of Columbia D.C. Code §32-1008: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-1008
• Maryland Md. Lab. & Empl. §3-504: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gle&section=3-504&enactments=false
• Maryland Department of Labor — pay statement template + instructions: https://labor.maryland.gov/labor/wages/esspaystatementtemplateinstructions.pdf
• North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. §95-25.13: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_95/GS_95-25.13.html
• Texas Tex. Lab. Code §62.003: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/LA/htm/LA.62.htm#62.003

Case law

• Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/680/
• Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2011): https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6027922186540615597
• Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 864 (2013): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1632936.html
• Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp., 5 Cal.App.5th 926 (2016): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/b244383.html
• Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/01/06/17-15983.pdf
• Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2020/s248702.html
• Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 762 (2020): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2020/s248726.html
• Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/28/19-16184.pdf
• Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022): https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2022-08/S258966.pdf
• Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 15 Cal.5th 1056 (2024): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2024/s279397.html
• Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31 Cal.3d 774 (1982): https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/31/774.html