Interactive Tool
Wage Statement Compliance Checker
Evaluates compliance with each of the nine required elements of a California wage statement under Labor Code section 226(a): (1) gross wages, (2) total hours worked, subject to the closed list of exceptions in section 226(j), (3) piece-rate units and rate, (4) all deductions, subject to the statutory allowance for aggregating deductions the employee authorized in writing, (5) net wages, (6) pay period dates, (7) employee name and only the last four digits of the SSN, or an employee ID other than the SSN, (8) employer's legal name and address, and (9) all applicable hourly rates and corresponding hours. Identifies common deficiency patterns and derivative Naranjo exposure for each element.
All calculations run in your browser. No data is transmitted or stored.
Each of the nine elements is evaluated independently. The exposure model separates the two tracks the law separates. Section 226(e) statutory damages ($50 initial / $100 subsequent per employee per statement, capped at $4,000 per employee) accrue per non-compliant statement — not per deficient element, a plaintiff's theory the tool quantifies separately and labels — and only on two further elements the grid itself does not test: injury under section 226(e)(2), deemed where no statement was provided or where the employee cannot promptly and easily determine the information from the statement alone, and a 'knowing and intentional' failure under section 226(e)(1) and (e)(3). The PAGA civil penalty requires neither, and runs instead on the post-reform section 2699(f)(2)(A) schedule, including the $25 reduction — which turns on the promptly-and-easily-determine test for elements (1) through (7) and (9) but on a distinct employer-identity confusion test for element (8) — and the $50 isolated-nonrecurring reduction. That asymmetry is the tool's central point: the same showing that defeats the damages claim outright merely discounts the penalty. Post-Naranjo, the failure to include meal/rest period premiums in gross wages and applicable hourly rates creates derivative wage statement exposure.
Interactive · Wage Statement Compliance Checker
The nine elements required by Labor Code § 226(a). Mark each item compliant or deficient. A non-compliant statement generates two legally distinct exposures — § 226(e) statutory damages ($50 initial / $100 subsequent per employee, capped at $4,000, per statement) and a PAGA civil penalty, which the 2024 reform can reduce to $25 or $50 in defined circumstances. The grid tests the statement. It does not test injury or scienter, the two further elements § 226(e) requires and PAGA does not; both are set out below.
Aggrieved Employees
Pay Periods
Mark each element as compliant or deficient using the buttons.
§ 226(a)(1)
Gross wages earned
high riskTotal compensation earned during the pay period, before deductions. Must include overtime, bonuses, commissions, and meal/rest premiums (post-Naranjo).
§ 226(a)(2)
Total hours worked
medium riskAll hours worked during the pay period, “except as provided in subdivision (j).” Subdivision (j) is a closed list, not a general exempt-employee carve-out: it excuses the hours line only where compensation is solely based on salary and the employee is exempt from overtime, or where the employee falls within one of eight enumerated exemptions. A commissioned salesperson exempt from overtime under Wage Order 4-2001 or 7-2001, § 3(D), is on neither list — and is not paid “solely” by salary — so total hours must still be shown.
§ 226(a)(3)
Number of piece-rate units earned and applicable piece rate
low riskRequired ONLY if the employee is compensated on a piece-rate basis. Must show both the number of units and the rate per unit. Under § 226.2, must also show rest period and non-productive time compensation separately.
§ 226(a)(4)
All deductions
medium riskEvery deduction from gross pay must be itemized — with one express exception written into the statute: deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item. Section 226(e)(2)(B)(ii) confirms that the injury provision does not disturb that allowance.
§ 226(a)(5)
Net wages earned
low riskGross wages minus all deductions. This is the amount actually paid to the employee.
§ 226(a)(6)
Inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid
medium riskThe start and end date of the pay period. Must be the actual pay period dates, not the pay date.
§ 226(a)(7)
Name of the employee and only the last four digits of the SSN, or an employee ID number
medium riskThe statute permits the last four digits of the social security number and no more, or an employee identification number “other than a social security number.” The word doing the work is “only” — the litigated failure here is showing too much, not too little.
§ 226(a)(8)
Name and address of the legal entity that is the employer
high riskThe employer’s legal name — not a DBA or trade name — and address. Where the employer is a farm labor contractor as defined in § 1682(b), the statement must also carry the name and address of the legal entity that secured the contractor’s services.
§ 226(a)(9)
All applicable hourly rates and the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate
high riskEvery hourly rate must be shown with the hours worked at that rate — regular, overtime at 1.5× and 2×, and any differential. Temporary services employers as defined in § 201.3 carry an additional requirement dating to July 1, 2013: the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment, broken out per assignment.
Compliant
0
Deficient
0
Unchecked
9
§ 226(e) Statutory Damages
$0
No deficient elements marked
For illustrative purposes only. Lab. Code § 226(a)(1)-(9) (nine required elements, with the hours line excused only as § 226(j) provides); § 226(e) ($50 initial / $100 subsequent, per employee per statement, max $4,000 per employee) on proof of injury under § 226(e)(2) and a 'knowing and intentional' failure under § 226(e)(1) and (e)(3). PAGA civil-penalty figures reflect the post-reform schedule for notices filed on or after June 19, 2024 — § 2699(f)(2)(A) $100 default, (A)(i) $25 on either of its two element-specific tests, (A)(ii) $50 isolated-nonrecurring; a pre-reform notice runs the $100/$200 analysis instead. Whether § 226(e)'s amounts or a different civil-penalty measure governs the PAGA claim is itself contested — the tool separates the two tracks so neither is silently assumed. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security (2022) 13 Cal.5th 93 (premiums on wage statements); Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056 (good-faith defense). Estimated figures based on user-configured inputs.
Other Tools
PAGA Penalty Estimator
Three-scenario exposure model
Regular Rate Calculator
Ferra and Alvarado methodology
Penalty Cap Qualifier
15% and 30% documentation
Statute of Limitations Calculator
PAGA vs. underlying lookback
Recoverability Checker
ZB, N.A. category analysis
Derivative Penalty Mapper
Naranjo penalty cascade
PAGA Reform Decision Tree
Post-reform strategic routing
For illustrative purposes only. This tool does not constitute legal advice.