2024 Reform Quick Reference

Per employee, per pay period. Replaces $100/$200 structure.

Flat $100 for all violations regardless of first/subsequent.

Either a five-year prior finding, to this employer, on this practice — or malice, fraud or oppression found by the court.

Two predicates, and the first carries four limits in a single sentence. Under (B)(i) the $200 rate applies where, within the five years preceding the alleged violation, the agency or any court issued a finding or determination to the employer that its policy or practice giving rise to the violation was unlawful — so the finding must be recent enough, from the right issuer, against this employer, and about this practice. Under (B)(ii) the court determines the conduct was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive; the statute assigns that to the court rather than the jury.

Bars a derivative penalty stacked on the underlying unpaid wage violation.

The bar is asymmetric, and the asymmetry is the whole of its defense value: sections 201, 202 and 203 are barred unconditionally, section 204 escapes the bar only on a willful or intentional violation, and section 226 escapes on a knowing or intentional violation or on a failure to provide a wage statement at all. It is not a rule that only one penalty may be collected per employee per pay period. Directly curtails the Naranjo derivative cascade. On the baseline illustration, severing the stacked § 226Lab. Code § 226Operative text of § 226226. (a) An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to their employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any …Fetched from leginfo 2026-08-02 and § 203Lab. Code § 203Operative text of § 203203. (a) If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. …Fetched from leginfo 2026-08-02 streams removes roughly 46% of the gross pre-reform figure — before the $200-to-$100 rate change is applied.

Employers who pay weekly: penalties halved.

50% reduction for weekly-pay employers to equalize with bi-weekly/semi-monthly employers.

Increased from 25/75.

The increased employee share may make smaller amounts more viable for plaintiff's counsel while net settlements decrease.

Maximum penalty reduced to 15%.

Requires "all reasonable steps" to comply before receiving the notice — or before a § 226Lab. Code § 226Operative text of § 226226. (a) An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to their employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any …Fetched from leginfo 2026-08-02, § 432Lab. Code § 432Operative text of § 432432. If an employee or applicant signs any instrument relating to the obtaining or holding of employment, he shall be given a copy of the instrument upon request. (Amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 714.)Fetched from leginfo 2026-08-02 or § 1198.5Lab. Code § 1198.5Operative text of § 1198.51198.5. (a) (1) Every current and former employee, or their representative, has the right to inspect and receive a copy of the personnel records that the employer maintains relating to the employee’s performance, including education or training records, or to any grievance concerning the employee. (2) An employer who maintains education or training records shall ensure those records include all of the following: (A) The name of the employee. …Fetched from leginfo 2026-08-02 records request from the employee or their counsel, whichever is earlier. The standard requires documented compliance infrastructure.

Maximum penalty reduced to 30%. Unavailable where the $200 enhanced rate is recovered.

Requires "all reasonable steps" to ‘prospectively’ be in compliance within 60 days — the qualifier does not appear in § 2699(g)(1), and § 2699(h)(2) asks for an action taken to initiate each step rather than for completion. Section 2699(h)(3) then withdraws this cap entirely where the penalty is recovered under § 2699(f)(2)(B); the 15% cap has no such exclusion. Available to employers with no pre-notice infrastructure.

Per-category application.

The 15% and 30% caps can potentially apply to different violation categories within the same action. The statutory text supports this — §§ 2699(g) and (h) operate independently.

The caps are a measure, not a ceiling.

Section 2699(e)(2) gives the court discretion in both directions: it may award less than the maximum specified by this part, "including the penalty amounts in subdivisions (g) and (h)," and it may also, notwithstanding those limitations, exceed them where confining the award otherwise would result in an award that is "unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory." A model that treats a qualified cap as a guaranteed outcome is making the same error as a demand that treats a maximum as an entitlement. Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics (Cal. Ct.App., June 17, 2026, G064718, as mod. July 1, 2026) holds the subdivision prescribes no method for the reduction: percentage, per pay period and per employee are all available, and the choice among them is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Plaintiff must have personally experienced each violation.

Codifies and strengthens the standing requirement. A plaintiff at Location A cannot bring claims based on conditions unique to Location B.

Leeper is pending.

The Supreme Court is deciding whether headless PAGA is permitted. The answer will interact with the reformed standing requirement.

Explicit statutory authority to limit evidence and scope.

The court may limit evidence and scope to ensure claims can be "effectively tried." Cannot dismiss on manageability grounds but can narrow significantly.

New remedy not available pre-reform.

Courts may now award injunctive relief. Creates a new settlement variable.

33 days from receipt, for an employer under 100 counted cumulatively across the notice period.

An employer that employed fewer than 100 employees in total during the period covered by the notice — a cumulative count across that period, not a headcount on any single day — may submit a confidential cure proposal within 33 days of receipt. If accepted, the PAGA action cannot proceed on cured categories.

Available to all employers. Confidential.

Provides a confidential forum to discuss claims. Particularly valuable for large employers who do not qualify for the cure.

One shot.

A rejected cure cannot be resubmitted. An inadequate proposal is worse than no proposal.

The superior court reviews and approves; the agency receives the proposal at the same time.

Two duties, not one. Section 2699(s)(2) provides that the superior court “shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part,” and that the proposed settlement “shall be submitted to the agency at the same time that it is submitted to the court.” The subdivision confers no objection or intervention right on the agency, and Turrieta describes the operative screen as the approving court and an agency that may comment but need not. The February 2026 proposed regulations would formalize a 45-day review period; they are proposed and not yet operative.

First-ever formal PAGA regulations.

High-frequency filer framework, vexatious filer designation, formalized cure conferences, 45-day settlement review, standardized notice filing.