Penalty Cap Qualifier

Evaluates whether an employer's compliance documentation satisfies the 'all reasonable steps' standard for the 15% or 30% PAGA penalty caps under the 2024 reforms. Walks through the specific documentation categories — written policies, supervisor training records, payroll audits, employee acknowledgments — and scores the employer's qualification status with identification of documentation gaps.

All calculations run in your browser. No data is transmitted or stored.
Methodology
The qualification assessment is based on the statutory text of Labor Code sections 2699(g) (15% cap — pre-notice 'all reasonable steps') and 2699(h) (30% cap — post-notice 'all reasonable steps' within 60 days). No published appellate decision had construed the reform's cap standards, manageability provision or cure procedures as of August 2026. Section 2699(g)(2) supplies the content of that standard and the checklist tracks it: four steps the statute names by example — periodic payroll audits with action taken on the results, dissemination of lawful written policies, supervisor training on Labor Code and wage order compliance, and appropriate corrective action with regard to supervisors, which is a separate record from training one — evaluated by the totality of the circumstances, taking into account the size and resources available to the employer and the nature, severity and duration of the alleged violations. The same subdivision forecloses the argument every demand makes against the cap: the existence of a violation, despite the steps taken, is insufficient to establish that an employer failed to take all reasonable steps. Section 2699(h)(2) repeats both of those sentences verbatim for the 30 percent cap, but its own standard is lower in two ways the checklist reflects — it scopes the examples to the alleged violations rather than to an ongoing program, and it asks only for an action taken to initiate each step. Section 2699(h)(1) also qualifies its standard with ‘prospectively’, a word absent from § 2699(g)(1), and § 2699(h)(3) makes the 30 percent cap unavailable altogether where the penalty is recovered under section 2699(f)(2)(B). The assessment identifies the documentation categories that the statutory text and legislative history suggest will be required, without predicting how courts will ultimately interpret the standard. Three limits are worth stating plainly. The 75 percent and 45 percent scoring bands are this tool's own analytical thresholds rather than statutory tests — 'all reasonable steps' is a totality assessment, and no percentage appears in the statute. The two caps are alternatives keyed to timing rather than cumulative: § 2699(g)(1) rewards steps taken before the notice arrived, § 2699(h)(1) steps taken within 60 days after, and an employer qualifies under one or the other. And the score measures what documentation exists, not how persuasive it will prove — a complete file assembled after a notice arrives scores the same as one built over years, while carrying far less weight with the court that eventually reads it.
Interactive · Penalty Cap Qualifier
Assess whether you qualify for the 15% or 30% penalty cap under the 2024 PAGA reforms (AB 2288 / SB 92).
Written meal period policy distributed to all employees
Brinker (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004
Written rest period policy (off-premises permitted)
Augustus (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257
Written overtime/timekeeping policy prohibiting off-the-clock work
Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194
Signed employee acknowledgments on file for all policies
Supervisor wage-and-hour training recorded to all five § 1198.5(a)(2) elements — employee name, provider, duration and date, core competencies, resulting certification
Lab. Code § 1198.5(a)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2026) — an attendance sheet supplies one of the five
Corrective action taken with supervisors who did not comply — documented and dated, separately from training
Lab. Code § 2699(g)(2) — the fourth step the statute names by example
Periodic payroll audits conducted, with responsive action documented
Lab. Code § 2699(g) ('periodic payroll audits' — the statute sets no fixed interval)
Regular rate calculation methodology documented (includes all non-discretionary comp)
Alvarado (2018) 4 Cal.5th 542
Expense reimbursement policy with submission procedures
Lab. Code § 2802
Complaint mechanism with 2+ channels and anti-retaliation language
Time-clock rounding eliminated or data-verified as net-neutral
Donohue (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58
Meal/rest premiums calculated at regular rate, not base rate
Ferra (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858
Electronic attestation system for noncompliant meal punches
Records-request escalation protocol — § 226 / § 432 / § 1198.5 requests routed to counsel on receipt
Lab. Code § 2699(g)(1)
Use the buttons to mark each item: No / Undocumented / Documented
Score
0%
0 / 28 points
The 75% / 45% bands are this tool's analytical thresholds, not statutory tests — "all reasonable steps" is a totality assessment.
15% Cap Qualification
Unlikely Without Action
Documentation gaps identified
Dollar Impact
Exposure input:
$500.0K
With 15% cap: $75.0K
Savings: $425.0K
Documentation Gaps (14 items)
•
Written meal period policy distributed to all employees
•
Written rest period policy (off-premises permitted)
•
Written overtime/timekeeping policy prohibiting off-the-clock work
•
Signed employee acknowledgments on file for all policies
•
Supervisor wage-and-hour training recorded to all five § 1198.5(a)(2) elements — employee name, provider, duration and date, core competencies, resulting certification
•
Corrective action taken with supervisors who did not comply — documented and dated, separately from training
•
Periodic payroll audits conducted, with responsive action documented
•
Regular rate calculation methodology documented (includes all non-discretionary comp)
•
Expense reimbursement policy with submission procedures
•
Complaint mechanism with 2+ channels and anti-retaliation language
•
Time-clock rounding eliminated or data-verified as net-neutral
•
Meal/rest premiums calculated at regular rate, not base rate
•
Electronic attestation system for noncompliant meal punches
•
Records-request escalation protocol — § 226 / § 432 / § 1198.5 requests routed to counsel on receipt
Read the AnalysisAB 2288 & SB 92: A Defense-Side Roadmap to the 2024 PAGA Reforms →
For illustrative purposes only. Penalty cap qualification depends on the specific facts of each case. Lab. Code § 2699(g)(1) (15% cap); § 2699(h)(1) (30% cap). Both figures are qualified by § 2699(e)(2), which lets a court award less — or exceed the limitation — where confining the award to it would be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.
For illustrative purposes only. This tool does not constitute legal advice.