a wage statement bearing an end date and beginning date to be in compliance with subdivision (a)(6). Willner v. Manpower, Inc., 35 F.Supp.3d 1116, 1128-1129 (N.D.Cal.2014); McKenzie v. Federal Exp. Corp., 765 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1229 (C.D.Cal.2011); Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., 2010 WL 2839417, *5-6 (S.D.Cal.2010). That line has reasoned that including a beginning date on the wage statement is required because the “inclusive dates” language of subdivision (a)(6) contemplates a range of dates with a definite beginning and end. Willner, 35 F.Supp.3d at 1128-1129; McKenzie, 765 F.Supp.2d at 1229; Lopez, 2010 WL 2839417 at *5-6; see Gleming v. Covidien, Inc., 2011 WL 7563047, *2 (C.D.Cal.2011). But cf., Derum v. Saks & Co., 95 F.Supp.3d at 1224-26, 2015 WL 1396651 at *4-5 (<HOLDING>). This Court has been provided with no reason
holding that defendant violated labor code section 226a6 by failing to include the beginning date for the pay period in its wage statements 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 statute of limitations for discriminatory pay practices begins when initial pay decision was made holding that the states rule dates the beginning of the discovery period only from the filing of the answer holding that back pay may be awarded to the date of judgment