Dated source review
What the review found
All 14 verifiable claims verified against Tier-1 sources: California Labor Code §226.7 + §512 + §226 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov), the IWC Wage Orders' rest-period formula as codified in the California DIR's published guidance, Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) on the per-category premium cap, and the Magadia v. Wal-Mart Stores procedural history (district court 2019; 9th Circuit reversal of the §226 portion 2021). The five modeled-data thresholds (5th-hour rule, 10th-hour rule, rest-break increments, 1-hour-per-category cap, 2-hour daily ceiling) all match the underlying statutes and the controlling California Supreme Court interpretation. Wage Order 5's healthcare double-meal waiver is intentionally unmodeled and surfaced in the methodology's "What's not modeled" section.
5 claims
First-meal-break trigger — shifts over 5 hours require one meal break
Tool's data layer — first meal required when shiftHours > 5
Second-meal-break trigger — shifts over 10 hours require a second meal break
Tool's data layer — second meal required when shiftHours > 10
Rest-break thresholds — 3.5h / 6h / 10h / 14h yield 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 rest breaks
Tool's data layer — rest breaks required at the 3.5h / 6h / 10h / 14h thresholds
The "major fraction" rule means more than half of the next 4-hour block triggers an additional break. The tool's published breakpoints (3.5h, 6h, 10h, 14h) are the standard DIR-aligned expression of that rule.
Per-category premium cap — one hour for any meal violation that day plus one hour for any rest violation that day
Tool's data layer — premiumHours = (anyMealViolation ? 1 : 0) + (anyRestViolation ? 1 : 0)
The per-category framing was settled by the California Supreme Court in Murphy: "An employee is owed only a single premium each day for all meal periods missed during that day, plus a single premium for all rest periods missed." The tool's (anyMealViolation ? 1 : 0) + (anyRestViolation ? 1 : 0) implements this directly.
Daily ceiling of 2 hours of premium pay
Tool's data layer — premiumHours maxes at 2 (1 meal + 1 rest)
4 claims
Cal. Lab. Code §226.7 — "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided"
Methodology § "What's modeled" + FAQ: "How much is the meal-break premium under California law?"
Cal. Lab. Code §512(a) — first meal break required for shifts over 5 hours; second meal break required for shifts over 10 hours
Methodology § "What's modeled" + FAQ: 'What counts as a "late" meal break?'
Cal. Lab. Code §226 — wage-statement penalty cascade for missing premium pay ($50 first violation, $100 per subsequent pay period per employee, capped at $4,000)
FAQ: "What happens if the employer doesn't put premium pay on the pay stub?"
IWC Wage Orders rest-break formula — "ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours worked or major fraction thereof"
Methodology § "What's modeled" + FAQ: "How many rest breaks are required for a given shift?"
2 claims
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) — §226.7 premiums are wages (not penalties), subject to the 3-year statute of limitations under CCP §338, AND one premium per category per workday regardless of number of violations within the category
Methodology § "What's modeled" + FAQ: "Why does the calculator cap premium pay at 2 hours per day?"
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal.5th 58 (2021) — electronic time records showing a short, late, or missed meal period raise a rebuttable presumption of a §226.7 violation
Methodology § "When this gets re-reviewed" + research-side fact-check log; informs the calculator's framing but not the math
Donohue is referenced in the methodology's re-review triggers and supplies background framing for the FAQ; it does not drive any calculator constant.
1 claim
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — ~$102M district-court judgment (2019) driven by §226 wage-statement cascade; 9th Circuit reversed the §226 portion (2021) on a class-rep Article III standing issue; the underlying §226 theory remained intact and PAGA penalties survived
FAQ: "What happens if the employer doesn't put premium pay on the pay stub?"
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019) — district court judgment
999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021) — partial reversal on standingThe FAQ's framing accurately surfaces the procedural arc — the case demonstrates the §226 cascade mechanic without overstating the headline dollar figure or conflating district-court entry with appellate outcome.
11 unique sources cited across the report — click to audit any claim directly against its evidence.
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019) — district court judgment
Every claim above links to the source we used. Open any source to compare the wording here with the underlying rule, guidance, court opinion, or product behavior.
If a source has changed or a claim looks wrong, tell us. We would rather correct the page than leave a stale answer online. See how we fact-check.
Clockspot keeps clock-ins, corrections, approvals, and payroll-ready hours connected so owners and managers can review the workweek before payroll.
Want to simplify how your team tracks time? See how Clockspot works.