Whether it was error not to instruct a jury on the law set forth in almost 20-years of opinions of California's Department of Labor Standards Enforcement holding that California's pay stub statute, Labor Code section 226, requires that where an employer elects to furnish electronic wage statements, the employer must provide easy access to all electronic wage statements for the preceding three years, and whether this question must be analyzed according to how the California courts would decide it with particular reference to California's rule that labor statutes be construed for the protection of employees?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether it was error not to instruct a jury on the law set forth in almost 20-years of opinions of California’s Department of Labor Standards Enforcement holding that California’s pay stub statute, Labor Code section 226, requires that where an employer elects to furnish electronic wage statements, the employer must provide easy access to all electronic wage statements for the preceding three years, and whether this question must be analyzed according to how the California courts would decide it with particular reference to California’s rule that labor statutes be construed for the protection of employees? 2. Where the employees’ ease of access to their electronic wage statements was an issue of fact for the jury, does a district court have the discretion to exclude evidence of the ease of access to wage statements for employees of the defendant employer’s related companies?