California PAGA Guide: What the 2024 Reforms Changed

PAGA addresses civil penalties, while your wage claim addresses your pay

The Private Attorneys General Act allows an eligible employee to pursue specified Labor Code civil penalties on behalf of the state. It operates under Labor Code sections 2698 through 2699.8. A PAGA claim is different from an individual claim seeking unpaid wages, although both can arise from the same payroll practice.^{1, 2}

That distinction matters when you evaluate a case or settlement. Wages can compensate you for work already performed. PAGA penalties serve an enforcement purpose and are divided under a statutory formula. A payment identified as a PAGA allocation should not be assumed to satisfy every individual wage claim under Labor Code section 2699.²

The 2024 reforms changed standing, penalties and opportunities to correct violations. They did not make every Labor Code problem a PAGA case or eliminate the requirement to identify an actual violation. AB 2288 amended section 2699, and SB 92 changed procedures under section 2699.3.^{1, 3}

The notice date determines which framework applies

The reforms generally apply to civil actions brought on or after June 19, 2024, subject to the exception for cases based on notices filed before that date. Labor Code section 2699’s transition provision makes the notice history important. Do not determine the governing rules solely from the date a settlement is negotiated.^{2, 3}

Locate the original PAGA notice, any amended notice and the court filing. Record when each was submitted and served. Those documents can affect standing, allocation, available remedies and the applicable cure procedures under sections 2699 and 2699.3.^{1, 2}

A notice sent to an employer is not interchangeable with an online submission to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The statute requires particular steps for both recipients. Preserve proof of each step rather than assuming an email to a supervisor completed the process.^{1, 2}

Who can bring a claim after the reforms

For claims governed by the revised law, the employee generally must have personally experienced each Labor Code violation alleged, within the applicable limitations period. Labor Code section 2699(c) therefore requires a connection between your own experience and the violations pursued on behalf of other employees.^{2, 3}

A narrow exception applies to qualifying nonprofit legal services representation. It should not be treated as a general rule allowing every employee to pursue any violation found elsewhere in the company. The specific conditions appear in Labor Code section 2699(c).²

Make a claim by claim record. If you personally experienced unpaid overtime and missed meals, identify those facts separately. If you heard that another department had expense problems but never experienced that practice yourself, flag the distinction before including it in a proposed notice.

PAGA generally addresses private employers rather than government employers. The California Supreme Court’s public entity analysis and Labor Code section 2699’s scope require special attention when the employer is a public agency or public institution. DIR’s linked LWDA guidance identifies that limitation.²

Former employees can qualify. Current employment is not the only route to standing under section 2699. However, leaving the job does not extend the filing period or eliminate the requirement to establish personal experience of the alleged violations.²

What a useful PAGA notice contains

Labor Code section 2699.3 requires a written notice identifying the Labor Code provisions allegedly violated and the facts and theories supporting those allegations. A list of section numbers without an explanation of the employer’s conduct is not a substitute for the required notice.²

A useful factual description identifies the practice, affected work, relevant period and how the practice violated the specified provision. For an overtime theory, that could mean explaining the omitted work or compensation and connecting it to Labor Code section 510. For a break theory, identify the practice that allegedly violated section 226.7 and the applicable wage order.

The notice should distinguish what you experienced from what you infer about other employees. Explain the basis for any broader allegation, such as a common written policy or uniform payroll setting. Avoid asserting that every employee was affected merely because the company has a large workforce.

The notice goes to LWDA through the official filing system and to the employer by certified mail. The current statutory filing fee is $75, with a financial hardship waiver process. These requirements arise under Labor Code section 2699.3 and DIR’s filing instructions.^{1, 2}

Submitting a document through the PAGA portal does not itself complete every service requirement. DIR expressly distinguishes filing from service. Save the uploaded notice, confirmation, mailing receipt and delivery information.¹

What happens during the notice period

For the ordinary wage and hour notice process, the agency generally has sixty five days to notify the parties that it intends to investigate. If no investigation notice is provided within that period, the employee can generally proceed to court, subject to applicable cure procedures and other requirements under Labor Code section 2699.3.²

If the agency elects to investigate, additional statutory periods apply. The sequence differs from simply waiting a fixed number of days and filing automatically. Track the actual agency notices, investigation decisions and any cure proceedings before selecting a court filing date.²

Health and safety allegations follow a separate Cal/OSHA procedure under Labor Code section 2699.3(b). A wage and hour notice timeline should not be copied into a safety case. Identify which agency has jurisdiction over the underlying violation.^{1, 2}

A PAGA notice is generally a public record. Do not include unnecessary medical, financial or identifying details merely to make the narrative longer. Include the facts needed to explain the violations while following the official filing instructions.¹

How the revised penalty framework works

Labor Code section 2699 distinguishes penalties provided by an underlying statute from the default penalties supplied by PAGA. The calculation therefore begins with the particular violation, affected employees and pay periods. It should not begin with multiplying the largest possible number by the entire workforce.³

The revised default framework generally uses $100 per aggrieved employee per pay period, with specified reductions and enhanced treatment for qualifying circumstances. The former assumption that every later pay period automatically receives a higher subsequent violation rate should not be carried into a revised law calculation. Labor Code section 2699(f) governs the categories.³

The reforms also address certain wage statement violations, isolated events and overlapping derivative penalties. These provisions require a fact specific calculation. The governing provisions are in Labor Code section 2699, and the LWDA’s guidance summarizes them.^{2, 3, 4}

Keep a penalty worksheet separate from the wage worksheet. The wage calculation asks what compensation remains unpaid. The penalty calculation asks which civil penalty applies, to whom, for which period and subject to what statutory adjustments.

The compliance caps are reductions to penalties

Under the revised Labor Code section 2699, an employer that took all reasonable steps to comply before receiving the relevant notice or records request can qualify for a cap of fifteen percent of the otherwise applicable penalty, subject to statutory exceptions. This is not a fifteen percent reduction; it is a cap at fifteen percent.^{2, 3}

An employer that takes all reasonable steps toward prospective compliance within sixty days after receiving a PAGA notice can qualify for a thirty percent cap, again subject to statutory conditions and exceptions. The distinction between fifteen percent and thirty percent depends on the timing and adequacy of the employer’s conduct under section 2699.²

Ask what the employer actually did. Relevant materials can include payroll audits, correction records, training, policies and responses to reported problems. A policy document is different from proof that supervisors followed it or that the payroll system was corrected.

The caps concern civil penalties. They do not mean the employer can satisfy unpaid wage obligations by paying only the capped percentage of wages. Labor Code section 2699 treats penalty reductions and the employee’s underlying compensation rights separately.²

What an effective cure must accomplish

The revised cure definition generally requires correction of the violation, compliance with the underlying law and making affected employees whole. For unpaid compensation, Labor Code section 2699(d) can require payment going back three years from the notice, seven percent interest, required liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs.²

That means a forward looking policy change alone may be insufficient. If the employer fixes a payroll setting but leaves past underpayments unpaid, compare the proposal with the statutory cure requirements. Check the affected employees, earning periods, rates and omitted compensation.²

Wage statement cures differ by the defect. Correcting the employer’s name and address can follow a different process from correcting other required wage statement information. Labor Code section 2699(d) and section 2699.3 address those distinctions.²

If the employer provides corrected statements, compare them with actual payments. A corrected document does not necessarily establish that missing wages were paid. Conversely, a payment may not correct every required item on the wage statement. Identify which part of the cure addresses each alleged violation.

The small employer administrative cure process

An employer that employed fewer than one hundred employees during the relevant prior year can seek the small employer administrative cure process under Labor Code section 2699.3(c). LWDA’s guidance counts employees beyond the particular California location, including qualifying former and temporary workers.²

The eligible employer generally must submit a cure proposal within thirty three days after receiving the PAGA notice. That proposal deadline differs from the deadline for completing the eventual cure. The agency reviews eligibility and sufficiency before determining whether to schedule a conference.²

If a conference proceeds, the employee can respond to the proposed cure and identify missing wages, affected workers or continuing practices. Bring a calculation and supporting records. General disagreement is less useful than identifying the specific component that remains unpaid or uncorrected.

LWDA can issue a cure plan, review the employer’s completion materials and determine whether the cure was accomplished. An employee who disputes that determination has a procedure to seek review. Follow the notices and Labor Code section 2699.3 rather than assuming the employer’s statement that it cured the matter ends the issue.²

Employers of any size also have a separate procedure for curing specified wage statement violations. The applicable deadlines and completion requirements differ from the small employer proposal process. Labor Code section 2699.3 requires attention to which route is being used.²

Early evaluation after a lawsuit is filed

The reforms provide a court administered early evaluation procedure under Labor Code section 2699.3(f). This differs from LWDA’s administrative cure process before litigation. An employer with 100 or more employees can request early evaluation and a stay through the prescribed court procedure.²

The process involves statements about disputed violations, proposed cures, penalties and possible resolution. Your response should explain the factual basis for each claim and why any proposed correction is sufficient or incomplete. A disagreement about the calculation should identify the disputed inputs.

An early evaluation request does not itself establish that a violation was cured. The process can lead to agreement, further corrective steps or a court determination. Preserve the distinction between an employer’s proposal and an approved resolution under section 2699.3.²

The employee allocation is thirty five percent

For claims governed by the revised allocation, Labor Code section 2699(m) directs sixty five percent of recovered civil penalties to LWDA and thirty five percent to aggrieved employees. The reforms did not give employees sixty five percent.²

In an allocation of $100,000 in civil penalties under the revised framework, $65,000 goes to LWDA and $35,000 is allocated to the aggrieved employees. That example concerns the penalty fund itself, not an entire settlement that may also include wages, fees, costs or administration expenses.²

Your individual payment is not necessarily the entire employee allocation or an equal share of it. The approved allocation method and affected periods matter. Ask for an explanation of the fund, deductions, distribution method and claims being resolved before comparing a proposed check with the headline settlement amount.

Settlement review and your individual claim

A PAGA settlement requires court approval under Labor Code section 2699. The proposed settlement must also be submitted to LWDA at the prescribed time. A private agreement between the parties does not eliminate these review requirements.^{1, 2}

Read the release alongside the notice and complaint. LWDA identifies concern with settlements that release claims outside the notice, conceal terms, return undistributed funds to the employer or fail to explain significant discounts. Those concerns relate to the enforcement purpose of sections 2699 and 2699.3.²

Identify whether individual wage claims are included and how they are valued. Do not assume that receiving a PAGA distribution resolves every unpaid wage, or that signing an individual release necessarily resolves the state’s penalty claim. The agreement and governing law must be analyzed separately.²

Use the California wage enforcement tracker to locate related agency records and compare their scope with the proposed case. For individual compensation issues, see California wage and hour claims. A prior enforcement record is a document to examine, not a substitute for proving the violations in your notice.

More wage and hour guides

• California Overtime Law: Rates, Rules and Examples: daily and weekly overtime, double time, the 2026 exemption thresholds, bonuses in the regular rate, five worked examples.
• California Minimum Wage 2026 by City and Industry: every local 2026 rate with its effective date, the fast food and health care floors, hotel rates, shortfall math.
• California Meal and Rest Break Law: Pay and Rights: meal timing, what Brinker requires, rest break math, waivers, on duty meals, the premium after Ferra, worked examples.
• How to File a California Labor Commissioner Wage Claim: what the Labor Commissioner hears, the calculation and records, the conference, the Berman hearing, the appeal clock and bond.
• California Employee Misclassification and the ABC Test: the ABC test part by part, the exceptions and Borello, construction and gig work, what a misclassified worker recovers.
• California Retaliation After Reporting Unpaid Wages: protected wage complaints, the 90-day presumption, the Lawson burden shift, immigration threats, the one-year deadline.
• California Unpaid Wage Deadlines and Tolling Rules: three years for wages, four under the UCL, one for wage statement penalties and PAGA, tolling, six worked date examples.
• Layoff guides: the California WARN Act, severance agreements, final paycheck after a layoff and furloughs.
• Wage theft tracker and layoff notice tracker: the employer’s own federal and state records.
• Wage and hour claims, workplace retaliation and wrongful termination: the practice pages for a claim.

Questions about PAGA after the 2024 reforms

Sources

1. California Department of Industrial Relations, Private Attorneys General Act Filing (accessed October 2026).
2. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Private Attorneys General Act Frequently Asked Questions (accessed October 2026): Standing, the 65 day period, caps, cure, the 65/35 split.
3. California Department of Industrial Relations, CHSWC Annual Report, legislative summaries of AB 2288 and SB 92 (2024).
4. California Legislature, AB 2288 and SB 92 (2024) (2024): The PAGA reform bills (SB 92 at leginfo bill_id=202320240SB92).

Statutes are cited by section so you can read them on the Legislature’s site. Rates and worked examples were checked on October 31, 2026; worked examples use made-up numbers to show the method and are not case results.