Blattner had a policy or practice of failing to propei’ly compensate employees for meal breaks and work performed before and after their shift. Because the Court certifies Hoffman’s proposed meal break and overtime and minimum wage subclasses, the Court also GRANTS Hoffman’s motion to certify the proposed wage statement subclass for the period from September 24, 2010 to present. In his Reply, Hoffman raises for the first time an additional request for relief based on Blattner’s failure to issue wage statements that identified the start date of the employee’s pay period. Reply at 24. Hoffman contends this violates California Labor Code section 226(a)(6) and constitutes “an easily certifiable issue.” Id; see also McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1229 (C.D.Cal.2011) (<HOLDING>). At the March 11 hearing, Blattner argued that
holding that failure to list a beginning date of a pay period on a pay stub was not a violation of section 226a6 when the employer provided an electronic wage statement that did include the beginning date of the pay period holding that same standard applies to equal pay act and title vii wage discrimination claims holding that limitations period in section 13  214a of the code applies over limitations period for contribution actions found in section 13  204 of the code because former provision is more specific holding that the states rule dates the beginning of the discovery period only from the filing of the answer holding that defendant violated labor code section 226a6 by failing to include the beginning date for the pay period in its wage statements