On June 26, 2024, Governor Newsom announced an agreement among his office, the legislature, and major labor and business groups to reform the California Private Attorneys General Act (commonly referred to as “PAGA”). On June 27, 2024, effective immediately, PAGA reform was signed into law via Assembly Bill 2288 and Senate Bill 92. The bills are the most significant amendments to PAGA since the statute was enacted in 2004 and resulted in the withdrawal of the PAGA repeal initiative that was slated to appear on the November 2024 ballot. Most importantly for employers, these reforms afford a variety of new potential defenses and changes to the statute that curb what have been long perceived as some of PAGA’s greatest excesses.
This reform does not do away with PAGA litigation and penalties completely, however. Diligent implementation and maintenance of legally-compliant policies and procedures, and implementing proactive practices to encourage employee compliance, remains the employer’s best defense.
The revisions only apply to legal actions that commence on or after June 19, 2024, which means they do not apply to any pre-existing PAGA actions, or any actions based on a PAGA notice sent prior to this date.
Until now, a representative employee suing under PAGA could seek penalties on behalf of the state and other allegedly aggrieved employees for all Labor Code violations experienced by any employee within the applicable one-year statute of limitations period, regardless of whether the representative employee experienced the same violations.
This is no longer the case. Going forward, employees bringing PAGA claims must have personally experienced each alleged violation for which they seek penalties on a representative basis. This is a significant limitation on the scope of PAGA claims, and will give employers a powerful new defense against the generically alleged “kitchen-sink” scope of asserted violations in PAGA claims that have become all too common.
As a potential caveat, the revised PAGA statute includes a provision that may permit broader claims to be alleged if certain nonprofit legal aid organizations are acting on behalf of a representative employee.
The reforms codify a court’s inherent authority to limit the scope of an employee’s alleged PAGA claims or the evidence that may be presented so as to ensure there can be an efficient trial. These changes are in line with the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., which held that, although courts cannot entirely dismiss PAGA claims on the ground that trying such claims would be unreasonably difficult or time intensive, courts can and should use all their traditional “case management tools” to efficiently adjudicate PAGA cases.
One of the more frequently criticized portions of PAGA was that its penalty structure was based on total pay periods. This structure resulted in employers with weekly pay periods facing double the penalties as compared to their bi-weekly or semi-monthly pay period counterparts. This particularly unfair outcome is no more, as employers who pay weekly will have their penalties reduced by one-half.
Employers now have greater certainty regarding the maximum penalties they may face in a PAGA claim, and additional potential bases for penalty reduction. Previously, employers were generally subject to civil penalties of $100 per pay period for each initial violation, and $200 per pay period for each subsequent violation.
Now with certain limited exceptions, $100 per pay period will be the standard penalty, subject to potential reductions as discussed below. The $200 per pay period penalty will now only apply to employers who willfully or repeatedly violate the Labor Code.
Another avenue for employers to approach PAGA cases has arrived in the form of greatly expanded “cure” provisions allowing employers to fix the Labor Code violations alleged in an employee’s PAGA notice. To “cure” generally means that the employer made the employees whole by such actions as re-issuing corrected wage statements and/or paying all wages due in addition to interest, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees, where applicable. There are different procedures for large employers (having 100 or more employees) and small employers (less than 100 employees), including:
There is a relatively short period of time in which employers can exercise options to cure depending on the size of the employer and the type of violation. The time to cure or “take all reasonable steps” to comply with the Labor Code generally ranges from 33 days (for employers seeking to “cure” alleged violations) to 60 days (for employers seeking to limit their potential liability by taking steps to comply with the Labor Code) of the PAGA notice postmark date. Curing violations is often a time- and labor-intensive process. Albeit important options to consider, it is noteworthy that these are entirely new processes. There remains much uncertainty as to what will be found to constitute a “successful cure” or having taken “all reasonable steps.”
The above is a brief, non-comprehensive overview of the new cure options. Employers need to promptly consider their options on a case-by-case basis with qualified counsel upon receiving a PAGA notice letter.
Employees are now able to pursue injunctive relief under PAGA, meaning they can seek an order from the court requiring the employer to take some immediate action to comply with the Labor Code.
Although these reforms are a major step forward for employers facing PAGA claims, it remains to be determined how the amendments will play out in courtrooms throughout the state. What constitutes a compliant cure of an alleged violation is likely to remain highly contested and unclear for some time. Similarly, expect significant disputes about whether the employer’s efforts to comply with the Labor Code constitute “all reasonable steps” under the new law.
Most of all, these new provisions highlight the importance to employers of taking steps to proactively comply with the Labor Code and all relevant Wage Orders. Now is the time to audit your policies and practices and take action to not only correct potentially noncompliant practices revealed, but to also institute good-faith measures recognized by the courts as encouraging employee compliance. Employers should proactively take steps to minimize any potential liability.
The above summary is for general information purposes only. This information is not meant to substitute for legal counsel as to any specific facts or circumstances.
For questions regarding wage and hour issues or other employment law needs, contact the attorneys at LightGabler LLP.
Copyright © LightGabler LLP • Contact | Our People | Website by Dan Gilroy Design