Instead, that line frames the relevant inquiry as whether the employer was aware of the factual predicate underlying the violation; e.g., whether the defendant knew that the wage statement contained only the end date of the pay period. Id.; Contreras v. Performance Food Group, Inc., 2014 WL 6481365, *4 (N.D.Cal.2014); Willner v. Manpower Inc., 35 F.Supp.3d at 1131-1132; see Perez v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., 2007 WL 1848037, *9 (N.D.Cal.2007) (finding that ignorance of the requirement that an employer record the number of hours worked did not render the violation of Section 226(a) unknowing or unintentional when the employer knew that the wage statements contained an incorrect representation of hours worked); Cornn v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2006 WL 449138, *2-3 (N.D.Cal.2006) (<HOLDING>). Of the cases that have identified that “good
holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force holding that section 226 requires an employer to report all hours worked not reporting hours disputed  regardless of good faith does not meet that standard holding that to state a claim for wage violations under the flsa plaintiffs must provide at least some approximation of the overtime hours that defendants required them to work and a time frame for when those hours were worked holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours holding that section 778114c is meant to prohibit the practice of cutting salary for a week in which less than forty hours is worked in order to counterbalance compensation for hours over forty worked in another week of the same pay period