PAGA Claims in California: When Employees Enforce Labor Laws on Behalf of the State

Intro

California’s Private Attorneys General Act—commonly referred to as PAGA—allows employees to step into the role of a private enforcer when employers violate labor laws. Unlike traditional employment lawsuits, PAGA claims are brought on behalf of the State of California, not just individual employees. As a result, PAGA has become one of the most powerful—and most contested—mechanisms for addressing systemic workplace violations. Presidio Law Firm LLP represents employees in PAGA matters where employer practices violate California labor standards on a broad scale.

What PAGA Is—and Why It Exists

PAGA was enacted to address widespread underenforcement of California labor laws. State agencies lack the resources to pursue every violation, particularly where misconduct affects large numbers of employees through uniform policies or practices.

PAGA authorizes employees to act as private attorneys general, seeking civil penalties for Labor Code violations that would otherwise go unaddressed. In doing so, the statute serves both a remedial and a deterrent function.

How PAGA Differs From Class Actions

PAGA claims are fundamentally different from class actions. In a PAGA case:

• The employee represents the State of California
• Civil penalties are sought for Labor Code violations
• A substantial portion of any recovery is allocated to the State
• Traditional class-certification requirements do not apply

Because the State is the real party in interest, PAGA claims often proceed even where class actions are limited by procedural hurdles.

Common Labor Code Violations Litigated Under PAGA

PAGA claims frequently involve allegations such as:

• Overtime violations
• Meal and rest break violations
• Misclassification of employees
• Inaccurate or noncompliant wage statements
• Failure to pay minimum wages
• Failure to reimburse business expenses
• Retaliation for asserting workplace rights

When these violations stem from uniform policies or practices, PAGA provides a powerful enforcement vehicle.

Why Employers Focus on Arbitration and Waivers

Many employers include arbitration agreements and class-action waivers in employment contracts. While such provisions may limit class actions, they do not automatically bar PAGA claims.

California courts have repeatedly recognized that PAGA claims involve public enforcement interests that cannot be fully waived through private agreement. As a result, arbitration is often a contested—but not dispositive—issue in PAGA litigation.

How Employers Attempt to Limit or Eliminate PAGA Claims

In response to the expanding use of PAGA, many employers have adopted strategies aimed at limiting exposure or discouraging representative claims. Some of these strategies are lawful; others are frequently challenged.

One common approach is aggressive reliance on arbitration agreements. While employers often assume arbitration clauses will eliminate all collective exposure, PAGA claims are distinct. Because a PAGA action is brought on behalf of the State, private arbitration agreements do not automatically extinguish PAGA liability. Employers nonetheless continue to invoke arbitration to fragment claims or delay enforcement.

Employers also attempt to narrow PAGA claims through contractual waivers or acknowledgments purporting to restrict representative actions. Courts closely scrutinize these provisions, particularly where they attempt to waive public enforcement rights or are imposed without meaningful choice.

Another frequent tactic involves rapid “cure” efforts after receiving PAGA notice. Employers may attempt to retroactively revise policies, issue partial payments, or recharacterize practices in an effort to argue that penalties should not apply. Whether such efforts are effective depends on timing, scope, and the nature of the violations. Superficial or incomplete corrections often fail to insulate employers from liability.

Some employers attempt to reclassify workers, modify job titles, or restructure compensation models midstream to argue that violations were isolated. Courts typically focus on what occurred during the relevant period—not post-hoc changes designed to limit exposure.

Finally, employers may attempt to discourage PAGA participation through subtle retaliation, pressure, or isolation. California law expressly prohibits retaliation related to PAGA activity, and such conduct often gives rise to independent claims that increase overall exposure.

The Notice and Administrative Process

Before filing a PAGA lawsuit, employees must provide written notice to the appropriate state agency and the employer identifying the alleged Labor Code violations.

This step is substantive, not procedural. How violations are framed at the notice stage often determines the scope and viability of the case.

Penalties and Financial Exposure

PAGA penalties can be significant, particularly where violations are ongoing or affect large numbers of employees. Penalties are generally assessed on a per-employee, per-pay-period basis.

Because penalties accrue over time, exposure can escalate rapidly once systemic violations are identified.

Settlement and Court Oversight

PAGA settlements require court approval to ensure that the State’s interests are protected. Courts evaluate whether settlements are fair, reasonable, and consistent with the statute’s enforcement purpose.

This oversight distinguishes PAGA claims from purely private employment disputes.

Retaliation for PAGA Activity Is Prohibited

Employees who pursue or participate in PAGA claims are protected from retaliation. Termination, discipline, or adverse treatment following PAGA-related activity can form the basis of separate retaliation claims.

Many PAGA cases involve overlapping wrongful termination allegations.

Why Experience Matters in PAGA Litigation

PAGA claims sit at the intersection of employment law, administrative procedure, and representative litigation. Early missteps—particularly at the notice stage—can narrow claims or foreclose recovery entirely.

Effective representation requires a strategic assessment of whether PAGA is the appropriate enforcement vehicle and how it should be coordinated with other claims.

Closing

PAGA was designed to ensure that California’s labor laws are enforced when systemic violations occur. When employers rely on uniform practices that violate those laws, PAGA allows employees to seek accountability on behalf of the State. Presidio Law Firm LLP represents employees in PAGA matters with a focus on strategic evaluation, careful statutory compliance, and enforcement of workplace protections intended to benefit both employees and the public.