Interactive Tool
Recoverability Checker
Classifies every predicate a PAGA notice commonly pleads — twenty, in four groups — by what the Labor Code makes each remedy: a civil penalty PAGA reaches (the Labor Commissioner's penalty or the section 2699(f) default), the employee's own statutory penalty, wages, liquidated damages, equitable relief, or a remedy the statute puts outside PAGA. Predicate Analysis mode states the duty provisions, the remedies, the post-reform section 2699(i) rule, the notice track and cure eligibility, and the questions the authorities leave open, with both readings. Exposure Reconstruction mode takes a matter's inputs — notice date, headcount, pay periods and frequency, separations, daily wage, and the facts each predicate turns on — and rebuilds an aggregate demand predicate by predicate: the statutory maximum on the employer-side reading and on the plaintiff-side reading, the employee-track items beside the PAGA figure rather than inside it, and the inputs each answer depended on.
All calculations run in your browser. No data is transmitted or stored.
Methodology
The analysis asks three questions for every predicate: is there a civil penalty specifically provided for the violation; if so, is it one PAGA authorizes an aggrieved employee to recover; and if not, does the section 2699(f) default apply. The answers come from a statutory recoverability matrix built from the current and pre-reform texts and read against the decisions, and the figures from one engine (lib/recoverability.js) that imports every schedule from lib/penalties.js. Four positions carry the weight. Section 558 specifically provides the penalty for overtime and for meal and rest conduct pleaded under section 512 or the wage order ($50 for the initial pay period and $100 thereafter per underpaid employee), so those predicates do not run on the default; section 226.7 pleaded alone does. Section 226(e)'s $50 and $100, capped at $4,000 per employee, is the employee's own statutory penalty and never a PAGA recovery; the PAGA penalty for a section 226(a) violation is the section 2699(f)(2) default for an inadequate statement (Gunther v. Alaska Airlines) or section 226.3's $250 per violation on the Raines v. Coastal Pacific reading, a published conflict the tool shows both ways. Section 203's waiting-time penalty is likewise the employee's; the civil penalty for the sections 201 and 202 violation is section 256's, a ceiling of thirty days' pay per separated employee that the court fills under section 2699(e)(1) (Villacres v. ABM Industries; Wood v. Kaiser), and for post-reform notices section 2699(i) bars it outright when stacked on the penalty for the underlying unpaid wages. Section 1197.1 charges $100 for an initial minimum-wage violation only if intentionally committed and $250 for each subsequent violation for the same specific offense; the wages and section 1194.2 damages are the employee's. A subsequent-violation rate is charged only after the employer was notified that its practice was unlawful (Amaral v. Cintas), which the tool takes as an input. For post-reform notices the engine applies the $25 and $50 tiers of section 2699(f)(2)(A), the $200 rate of (f)(2)(B) on a prior finding or malice, the fifteen and thirty percent caps of subdivisions (g) and (h) after the weekly reduction of subdivision (o), the cure consequences of subdivision (j), and the derivative bars of subdivision (i) — unconditional for sections 201 through 203, conditioned on willfulness for section 204 and on a knowing and intentional violation or a failure to provide a wage statement for section 226. Every figure is a statutory maximum on the stated inputs; the court's discretion under section 2699(e)(2) has no prescribed method (Taduran v. Glidewell), and no figure is a settlement value. Whether a plaintiff may plead only non-individual PAGA claims is before the California Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt (S289305, review granted April 16, 2025; fully briefed December 9, 2025); no decision had issued as of October 21, 2026.
Interactive · Recoverability Checker
PAGA reaches civil penalties: the ones the Labor Commissioner could assess, and the § 2699(f) default where a provision carries none. It does not reach the employee’s own statutory penalties, wages, premiums, liquidated damages or reimbursement, which travel on the employee’s claim. This tool classifies every predicate a notice commonly pleads by what the law makes each remedy, and reconstructs an aggregate demand predicate by predicate: the statutory maximum on the stated inputs, with the employee-track items beside it rather than inside it, and the inputs each answer depended on named.
Twenty predicates in four groups. Each row names the duty provisions, classifies every remedy the conduct can produce, states the post-reform § 2699(i) rule, the notice track and cure eligibility, and shows the questions the authorities have not settled with both readings. Rendered from the statutory recoverability matrix (matrix of October 21, 2026).
A. Payment of wages during employment
Pay timing during employment§§ 204–205.5 → § 210PAGA civil penalty
Paying wages later than the statutory payday, or failing to pay a wage component (overtime, premium, commission) on time; pleaded in nearly every PAGA notice as 'failure to timely pay all wages during employment'.
Duty provisions
- § 204 (semimonthly paydays; (b)(1) overtime by the next regular payday)
- § 204b (weekly), § 204.1 (vehicle dealer commissions), § 204.2 (exempt monthly), § 204.11 (licensed barbering/cosmetology commissions), § 205, § 205.5 (agricultural, domestic)
- § 201.3 (temporary services weekly pay)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 210(a) | Civil penalty PAGA reaches Payable to: state/employees under § 2699(m) when enforced through PAGA | initial: 100; subsequentOrWillful: 200; upliftOnWithheld: 0.25 for each failure to pay each employee (per late or missed payment, not per pay period as such) same text both regimes; § 210 was not amended by the 2024 acts | § 210 is the civil penalty 'specifically provided' for §§ 201.3, 204, 204b, 204.1, 204.2, 204.11, 205, 205.5 and 1197.5, so the § 2699(f) default does not apply to those sections (§ 2699(f) opening clause). Recovery is through § 2699(a). Elements: the higher tier applies to 'each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation'; whether 'subsequent' requires prior notice of unlawfulness (the Amaral rule for § 2699(f)) is unresolved for § 210 and is applied here by analogy as the employer-side reading |
| § 210(b)–(c) | Employee’s own statutory penalty Payable to: employee | The same amounts may instead be recovered by the employee 'as a statutory penalty pursuant to Section 98' (a Labor Commissioner proceeding); § 210(c): the employee is entitled to either the statutory penalty or to enforce the civil penalty under § 2699(a), 'but not both, for the same violation'. An election, not a stack. | |
| § 218.6 interest; the late-paid wages themselves | Wages Payable to: employee | Not a PAGA recovery. |
§ 2699(i), post-reform: conditional
Post-reform, no § 204 civil penalty 'in addition to the civil penalty collected ... for the underlying unpaid wage violation' unless the § 204 violation is willful or intentional (§ 2699(i)). A timing violation that is derivative of an unpaid-overtime or unpaid-premium theory therefore drops out unless willfulness or intent is shown; a pure late-payment practice with no underlying unpaid-wage civil penalty is not within (i). The showing that opens (i) is the showing that reaches § 210(a)(2)'s higher tier.
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed in § 2699.5; no 33-day cure)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a (still listed); cure only through the § 2699.3(f) early evaluation conference, which is open to any PAGA claim)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (§ 220(a)–(b): §§ 204, 204b, 204.1, 205, 205.5 do not apply to state employees; §§ 200–211 do not apply to county/municipal employees)
Open questions
Is 'each failure to pay each employee' one violation per missed payday regardless of how many wage components were late?
Employer-side reading: one per payday per employee
Plaintiff-side reading: one per unpaid component
The instrument: Model per payday per employee; the text counts failures to pay, not components.
Does Amaral's notice requirement govern § 210's 'subsequent violation'?
Status: no published decision located; Gunther extended Amaral to § 226.3, which supports applying it to other initial/subsequent schedules
The instrument: Treat the $200 tier as requiring prior notice or willfulness, and say so.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Amaral v. Cintas Corp No 2; Statute text: Lab. Code § 210; Statute text: Lab. Code § 2699 (f) opening clause, (i)
Final pay at separation§§ 201, 202 → § 256; § 203 is the employee’sPAGA civil penalty
Final wages (including accrued vacation under § 227.3 and any unpaid premiums, Naranjo I) not paid when due at separation.
Duty provisions
- § 201 (discharge: immediately)
- § 202 (quit: within 72 hours, or at quitting with 72 hours' notice)
- §§ 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.7, 201.8, 201.9, 205.5 (industry variants)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 203(a) | Employee’s own statutory penalty Payable to: employee | the employee's daily wage continues 'as a penalty' from the due date until paid or an action is commenced, not more than 30 days per separated employee, once | Not a civil penalty assessed by the LWDA; recoverable by the employee directly without PAGA (Caliber Bodyworks). It never enters the PAGA column. Elements: willful failure to pay (intentional nonpayment; a good-faith dispute that any wages are due precludes willfulness, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 13520; Diaz v. Grill Concepts; Naranjo II's standard) · no benefit for an employee who secretes or absents themselves or refuses a full tender including accrued penalty Limitations: three years (§ 203(b); Pineda); not UCL restitution (Pineda) |
| § 256 (Labor Commissioner civil penalty 'not exceeding 30 days pay as waiting time under the terms of Section 203') | Civil penalty PAGA reaches Payable to: state/employees under § 2699(m) when enforced through PAGA | up to 30 days' wages per separated employee, in the court's discretion exercised as the Commissioner's under § 2699(e)(1) per separated employee, once unchanged by the 2024 acts; post-reform the § 2699(i) bar applies when the penalty is stacked on the underlying unpaid-wage penalty | § 256 is the civil penalty 'specifically provided' for the final-pay violation, so § 2699(f)'s opening clause displaces the per-pay-period default for §§ 201/202 and the PAGA measure is § 256's capped daily-wage figure. Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 579–580: § 203 'imposes a statutory penalty' on the employee's side, 'section 256 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to impose a civil penalty in the form of waiting time pay for the same statutory violation,' and 'only the recovery of the civil penalty falls within the PAGA'; Wood v. Kaiser (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742 (slip pp. 18–19) lists § 256 with Villacres among penalties 'enforced by an aggrieved employee under PAGA' although the statute names only the Labor Commissioner; Caliber Bodyworks (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th at pp. 377–378 and Dunlap (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330 describe it the same way. No decision located fixes a § 256 amount in a PAGA action; the ceiling (30 days' pay per separated employee) is the statutory maximum and the amount is the court's under § 2699(e)(1). The instrument adopts § 256 as the employer-side measure and shows the default-based figure (one pay period per separated employee; the continuing count on the plaintiff side) as the alternative. Elements: a violation of §§ 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202 or 205.5 (the sections § 203 names); whether willfulness is required depends on whether 'under the terms of Section 203' imports § 203's willfulness element or only its measure — no decision located |
| § 2699(f)(2) default for the §§ 201/202 violation | Civil penalty PAGA reaches Payable to: state/employees | pre: 100 initial / 200 subsequent; post: 100; 50 if isolated; 200 only on a (f)(2)(B) predicate per aggrieved employee per pay period — but a §§ 201/202 violation occurs once, at separation; see open question on the pay-period count post-reform the § 2699(i) bar removes this penalty whenever it is stacked on the civil penalty for the underlying unpaid-wage violation | The pleaded alternative: plaintiffs plead the default for §§ 201/202 as if no civil penalty were specifically provided. On the authorities above § 256 is specifically provided, so the default does not apply; the figure is shown because it is what demands carry and because no decision has rejected it. If the default did apply, a §§ 201/202 violation occurs once, at separation (one pay period per separated employee), with the continuing count as the plaintiff-side maximum. |
| the unpaid final wages, § 218.6 interest, § 227.3 vacation | Wages Payable to: employee |
§ 2699(i), post-reform: bar
Post-reform: no civil penalty for any violation of §§ 201, 202 or 203 'that is in addition to the civil penalty collected by that aggrieved employee for the underlying unpaid wage violation' No willfulness or intent escape (contrast § 204 and § 226 in the same sentence; Senate Judiciary analysis: 'limits derivative claims under specified provisions, but excludes willful violations of 204 and knowing violations of 226'). Where the only violation is the late final payment itself (no separate underlying unpaid-wage civil penalty in the action), (i) by its terms does not bite.
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed; EEC available))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (§ 220; Stone)
Open questions
Which civil penalty attaches to a §§ 201/202 violation pre-reform: the § 2699(f) default or § 256?
Employer-side reading: § 256 is specifically provided (Villacres; Wood; Caliber; Dunlap), so the default is displaced; the amount is discretionary and capped at 30 days' pay, and arguably requires the same willfulness as § 203 ('under the terms of Section 203')
Plaintiff-side reading: § 256 is a Commissioner's tool outside § 2699(a) or, if within it, cumulative with the default
Status: Villacres (2010) and Wood (2023) describe § 256 as the civil penalty within PAGA for the final-pay violation; no decision fixes an amount under it in a PAGA action
The instrument: Adopt § 256 as the employer-side measure (the ceiling, with the court's discretion stated); show the default-based figure as the pleaded alternative; both fall away post-reform under § 2699(i) when stacked on the underlying unpaid-wage penalty.
How many pay periods does a §§ 201/202 violation occupy for the § 2699(f)(2) per-pay-period default?
Employer-side reading: one violation per separated employee, counted once (the duty arises and is breached at separation; § 203 itself caps continuation at 30 days)
Plaintiff-side reading: a continuing violation for each pay period the wages remain unpaid within the limitations period
Status: no published decision located that squarely counts the periods; Thurman/Amaral digests to be checked for how the trial courts counted
The instrument: Model one pay period per separated employee as the statutory-maximum figure and show the plaintiff-side continuing count as a disclosed alternative.
Pre-reform, can the default penalty for §§ 201/202 be stacked on default penalties for the underlying wage violation (e.g., unpaid overtime)?
Status: nothing in the pre-reform text bars it; § 2699(e)(2) discretion is the only check (Carrington, Thurman reductions)
The instrument: Model it as available pre-reform, flagged for (e)(2) reduction.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 256 (site vendored text; DingDuff fetch pending); Digest: Caliber Bodyworks Inc. v. Superior Court; Digest: Pineda v. Bank Of America N.A.; Digest: Diaz v. Grill Concepts Servs Inc.; Digest: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc.; Digest: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc.; Digest: Amaral v. Cintas Corp No 2; Statute text: Lab. Code § 203, Lab. Code § 201, Lab. Code § 202, Lab. Code § 2699 (f), (i)
Unlawful deductions§§ 221–224 → § 225.5PAGA civil penalty
Unlawful deductions, charge-backs, kickbacks, secret underpayment of contract wages, paying by nonnegotiable instrument.
Duty provisions
- § 221 (no recovery of wages paid)
- § 222 (no withholding of agreed wages under a CBA)
- § 223 (secret underpayment)
- § 224 (permitted deductions)
- § 212 (wage instruments), § 216
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 225.5 | Civil penalty PAGA reaches Payable to: state/employees | initial: 100; subsequentOrWillful: 200; upliftOnWithheld: 0.25 for each failure to pay each employee unchanged by the 2024 acts | A civil penalty recovered by the Labor Commissioner 'as part of a hearing ... or in an independent civil action'; it is the specifically provided civil penalty for §§ 212, 216, 221, 222, 223, so the default does not apply to them. § 225 makes violations of §§ 221–223 misdemeanors (not recoverable). § 224 is a permission, not a duty; a 'violation of § 224' is pleaded as a § 221 violation. |
| the withheld wages | Wages Payable to: employee |
§ 2699(i), post-reform: none
§ 2699(i) does not name §§ 221–224; the second sentence's discretion to reduce for the same conduct applies.
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed; EEC available))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (§ 220(b))
Open questions
Does the Amaral notice rule govern § 225.5's 'subsequent violation'?
The instrument: Same treatment as § 210.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 225.5, Lab. Code § 221, Lab. Code § 222, Lab. Code § 223, Lab. Code § 224, Lab. Code § 225
Vested vacation at separation§ 227.3 → § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Forfeiture or nonpayment of vested vacation/PTO at separation.
Duty provisions
- § 227.3 (vested vacation paid as wages at termination; no forfeiture)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | pre: 100/200; post: 100; 50; 200 on (B) per aggrieved employee per pay period (one period at separation) | No specific civil penalty in § 227.3. |
| vested vacation | Wages Payable to: employee | Also a § 201/202 final-pay component (A2) and a § 203 trigger. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c (delisted by SB 92; small-employer agency cure and EEC))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 227.3; Statute text: sources/bills/SB92-derived-pre-reform-2699.5-list.md
B. Wage statements and records
Wage statements§ 226(a) → § 2699(f)(2) or § 226.3; § 226(e) is the employee’sPAGA civil penalty
Inaccurate or incomplete itemized statements (missing or wrong gross/net wages, hours, rates, pay-period dates, employee identifiers, employer name/address, piece-rate items); or no statement at all. Element (2) has the subdivision (j) exceptions. Element (4) permits aggregation of written-order deductions. Element (7) is violated by showing too much of the SSN, not too little; elements (8)–(9) carry farm-labor-contractor and temporary-services clauses.
Duty provisions
- § 226(a) items (1)–(9)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 226(e)(1) | Employee’s own statutory penalty Payable to: employee | greater of actual damages or $50 for the initial pay period and $100 per employee per violation in each subsequent pay period, not exceeding $4,000 per employee; plus costs and attorney's fees | The employee's own claim. It is not a civil penalty and is never recovered through PAGA (Caliber Bodyworks; Raines; Lopez). The $4,000 cap belongs to this remedy only. Elements: injury (deemed under (e)(2) where no statement is provided, or where accurate and complete information is missing and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine the listed items from the statement alone; Price v. Starbucks construed the pre-2013 text more narrowly) · knowing and intentional failure (not an isolated and unintentional clerical error, (e)(3)); an objectively reasonable good-faith belief in compliance defeats it (Naranjo II) |
| § 226.3 | Civil penalty PAGA reaches Payable to: state/employees | initialCitation: 250; subsequentCitation: 1000 per employee per violation | On the Raines reading the specifically provided civil penalty for any § 226(a) violation; on the Gunther reading the penalty only for no statement or no records. Unit per employee per violation (statement); the Commissioner's inadvertence discretion becomes the court's under § 2699(e)(1). Elements: Labor Commissioner discretion to decline a first-violation penalty for clerical error or inadvertence; a court exercising the same discretion under § 2699(e)(1) |
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | pre: 100/200 (subsequent only after notice); post: 100; $25 under (f)(2)(A)(i) where the employee could promptly and easily determine the accurate information from the statement alone (elements (1)–(7), (9)) or would not be confused or misled about the employer's identity (element (8)), unless the employer failed to provide a statement in any pay period at issue; $50 isolated event; $200 on a (B) predicate per aggrieved employee per pay period | The PAGA measure for a furnished but inadequate statement on the Gunther reading (and the measure the site, its ledger and lib/penalties.js assume); displaced by § 226.3 on the Raines reading. Neither injury nor a knowing-and-intentional element applies under either reading (Raines; Lopez; Gunther), subject post-reform to § 2699(i) for derivative statements. Pre-reform the $200 subsequent rate requires prior notice (Gunther; Amaral). Elements: no injury and no knowing-and-intentional element (Lopez; Raines), subject post-reform to § 2699(i) for derivative statements |
| § 226(h) injunctive relief; § 2699(k)(1) injunctive relief post-reform | Restitution or equitable relief |
§ 2699(i), post-reform: conditional
Post-reform: no § 226 civil penalty in addition to the civil penalty for the underlying unpaid-wage violation unless the § 226 violation was knowing or intentional, or the employer failed to provide a wage statement at all (disjunctive; the no-statement branch needs no scienter). A statement that is inaccurate only because the underlying wage was unpaid (Naranjo I's premium case) is the paradigm derivative statement.
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a for elements (1)–(5), (7), (9) (listed; no cure); c for elements (6) and (8) (curable once per 12 months under former § 2699.3(c)(2)(B)(ii), AB 1506)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c (all of § 226 delisted); the § 226-only 33-day cure of § 2699.3(c)(3); the small-employer agency track; EEC; cure defined by § 2699(d)(2) (compliant statements or notice of correct information for three years of pay periods))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (§ 226(i)); household employers (§ 226(d))
Open questions
§ 226.3 (Raines) or the § 2699(f) default (Gunther) for a furnished but inadequate wage statement?
Employer-side reading: Gunther: the default, $100 per aggrieved employee per pay period pre-reform (with $200 only after notice), and post-reform $100, $25 where the information is easily determinable, $50 isolated, $200 on a (B) predicate
Plaintiff-side reading: Raines: § 226.3's $250 per employee per violation, $1,000 for subsequent citations
Status: published conflict; Gunther is the later and the only decision to analyze § 226.3's text; Raines is the only one on the plaintiff side
The instrument: Model the Gunther default as the statutory measure, with the Raines § 226.3 figure shown as the plaintiff-side alternative and the (e)(2) discretion noted; never present the § 226(e) employee penalty in the PAGA column.
Is the (f)(2)(A)(i) 'promptly and easily determine' test identical to § 226(e)(2)(C)'s?
The instrument: Same words; treat as the same objective test, with the (A)(i) no-statement exception.
Does the 'failure to provide a wage statement' branch of § 2699(i) reopen the stack without scienter?
Status: no published decision construes it (site ledger, confirmed by search)
The instrument: Read as written (disjunctive); disclose.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors; Digest: Lopez v. Friant Assocs LLC; Digest: Gunther v. Alaska Airlines Inc.; Digest: Caliber Bodyworks Inc. v. Superior Court; Digest: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc.; Digest: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc.; Digest: Price v. Starbucks Corp; Digest: Savea v. Yrc Inc.; Digest: Morgan v. United Retail Inc.; Digest: Soto v. Motel 6 Operating L.P.; Digest: Ward v. United Airlines Inc.; Statute text: Lab. Code § 226, Lab. Code § 226.3, Lab. Code § 2699 (d)(2), (f)(2)(A)(i), (i), (j); Lab. Code § 2699.3 (c)(3); sources/bills/SB92-derived-pre-reform-2699.5-list.md; sources/bills/SB836 § 190 (former (c)(2)(B)(ii))
Records inspection§ 226(b), (f); § 1198.5; § 432PAGA civil penalty
Failure or delay in producing records on request.
Duty provisions
- § 226(b)–(c) (inspect or copy wage records within 21 days)
- § 1198.5 (personnel records within 30 days)
- § 432 (copies of signed instruments)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 226(f) | Disputed Payable to: 'the current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner' | 750 per violation (one request) | A fixed penalty that either the employee or the Commissioner may recover. Whether it is a 'civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA' within § 2699(a) (and so PAGA-recoverable on behalf of others) or an employee's own penalty like § 203 is not settled by any decision located; § 226(c) also makes the violation an infraction. |
| § 1198.5(k) | Disputed | 750 | Same structure as § 226(f); § 1198.5 is not on the § 2699.5 list. |
| § 2699(f)(2) default for § 432 / § 226(b) | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | Available only if § 226(f)/§ 1198.5(k) are not the 'specifically provided' civil penalty; a records request is a one-time event, so the per-pay-period unit yields one period. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(§ 226(b)–(c) and § 1198.5 unlisted (c track, curable); § 432 unlisted); post-reform: § 2699.3(c)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (§ 226(i))
Open questions
Are § 226(f) and § 1198.5(k) PAGA-recoverable civil penalties?
The instrument: Classify as disputed; the exposure is one $750 unit per requesting employee either way, and the PAGA route adds the 65/35 split and fees but no multiplier.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 226 (b), (c), (f); Lab. Code § 1198.5; Lab. Code § 432
Payroll records§ 1174(d) → § 1174.5PAGA civil penalty
Failure to keep accurate time and pay records.
Duty provisions
- § 1174(c)–(d) (names/addresses; daily hours and wages; piece-rate units; three-year retention)
- Wage Order § 7 (records)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1174.5 | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | 500 per employer per violation (the text states a single $500 civil penalty for a willful failure; it is not per employee or per pay period) | Specifically provided; displaces the default for § 1174(d). Elements: willful failure to maintain the records (or to allow inspection) |
| § 2699(f)(2) default for Wage Order § 7 via § 1198 | Disputed | A wage-order records violation pleaded through § 1198 would compete with § 1174.5; the specific penalty should control. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed: § 1174(c), (d))); post-reform: § 2699.3(a)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Open questions
Is § 1174.5's $500 per employer, per employee, or per pay period?
Status: the text gives one civil penalty of $500 for the failure; no decision located multiplying it per employee
The instrument: Model as one $500 per violation found; show a per-employee alternative only if pleaded, labelled as unsupported by the text.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 1174, Lab. Code § 1174.5
C. Hours, meal and rest periods, overtime, minimum wage
Meal and rest periods§§ 512, 226.7; Wage Order §§ 11–12 → § 558 or § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Meal periods not provided (late, short, interrupted, on-duty without a valid agreement, second meal not provided), rest periods not authorized and permitted (Brinker standard: provide, relieve of duty, relinquish control; no obligation to police), recovery periods denied; premiums not paid or paid at the base rather than the regular rate (Ferra).
Duty provisions
- § 512(a) (meal periods; waivers; second meal)
- § 226.7(b) (shall not require work during a meal, rest or recovery period required by statute, regulation, standard or IWC order)
- Wage Order §§ 11 (meal periods) and 12 (rest periods); Cal/OSHA heat-illness recovery periods (8 CCR § 3395)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 226.7(c) premium (one additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation per workday per category of period) | Wages Payable to: employee | A wage, not a penalty (Murphy; Kirby; Naranjo I); never a PAGA recovery; unpaid premiums can trigger § 203 and § 226 derivative claims subject to their own elements. Limitations: three years (Murphy); 7% prejudgment interest (Naranjo I) | |
| § 558(a)(1)–(2) civil penalty | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | initial: 50; subsequent: 100 per underpaid employee per pay period for which the employee was underpaid unchanged by the 2024 acts (so no $25/$50 tiers, no (f)(2)(B) $200 tier; the caps in (g)–(j) and the (o) halving apply to 'the penalty sought under subdivision (a) or (f)' and to 'the penalty recovered pursuant to this part', so they reach § 558 penalties recovered through PAGA) | The 'amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages' in § 558(a)(1)–(2) is not a civil penalty and is not recoverable through PAGA (ZB); it is the employee's wage (here, the premium). Elements: a violation of 'a section of this chapter' (Part 2, Chapter 1: §§ 500–558.1, which contains § 512 but not § 226.7) or of 'any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the IWC' (Wage Order §§ 11 and 12 regulate when and how long an employee must be relieved of duty: contested whether they are 'hours and days of work' provisions) · 'underpaid employee': the unit presupposes an underpayment, which for meal/rest violations is the unpaid premium · initial vs subsequent: Amaral/Gunther notice rule |
| § 2699(f)(2) default for § 226.7 (and for § 512 if § 558 is held inapplicable) | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | pre: 100/200; post: 100; 50 isolated; 200 on (B) per aggrieved employee per pay period | § 226.7 sits in Part 1 and carries no civil penalty of its own; § 2699(f) applies unless § 558 is read as the penalty 'specifically provided' for the same meal-period conduct. |
| Wage Order § 20 (penalty for violations of the order: $50/$100 per underpaid employee per pay period plus unpaid wages) | Disputed | A regulation, not 'a provision of this code'; reachable, if at all, through § 558's IWC-order clause; not an independent PAGA source. Listed so a demand that cites it can be answered. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (§ 226.7 and § 512 listed; no cure)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c (both delisted; curable; cure requires premiums back three years plus 7% interest, liquidated damages where applicable and lodestar fees, § 2699(d)(1)))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (Stone: §§ 226.7 and 512 do not apply to public employers); CBA exemptions in § 512(e)–(f) and § 226.7(f) (security officers, sunset January 1, 2027)
Open questions
Does § 558's second clause reach meal and rest provisions of the wage orders?
Employer-side reading: yes for § 512-chapter violations in any event; and the orders' meal/rest sections regulate hours of work, so § 558 (not the default) is the specific penalty
Plaintiff-side reading: § 226.7 is outside the chapter; the default applies to § 226.7 and § 558 applies to § 512 / the order, cumulatively
Status: Thurman (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1152–1154 holds the wage order's rest-period provisions are provisions 'regulating hours' within § 558, and at p. 1134 states the § 226.7 penalty is the default; whether both may be assessed for one missed period is not decided in any published opinion located.
The instrument: Show both: a single-penalty figure at § 558's $50/$100 as the statutory measure for meal-period conduct, and the cumulative figure (default plus § 558) as the plaintiff-side maximum, with the (e)(2)/(i) reduction note.
Rest periods: § 512 does not cover rest; is the wage order rest provision an 'hours and days of work' provision for § 558?
The instrument: Same split; same presentation.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management Inc.; Digest: Carrington v. Starbucks Corp; Digest: Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.; Digest: Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc.; Digest: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc.; Digest: Zb N.A. v. Superior Court; Digest: Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management Inc.; Digest: Carrington v. Starbucks Corp; Statute text: Lab. Code § 512, Lab. Code § 226.7, Lab. Code § 558, Lab. Code § 2699 (f), (i); sources/statutes/wage-orders/order-04.txt §§ 11, 12, 20
Overtime§§ 510, 1198 → § 558PAGA civil penalty
Unpaid or underpaid overtime, including regular-rate errors (flat-sum bonuses under Alvarado; commissions; shift differentials), off-the-clock work, rounding, misclassification as exempt.
Duty provisions
- § 510 (daily/weekly overtime; seventh day)
- § 511 (alternative workweek)
- § 1198 with Wage Order § 3 (hours and days of work)
- § 1194 (private right to unpaid overtime; not a duty provision)
- § 515 (exemptions); § 515.5
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 558(a)(1)–(2) | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | initial: 50; subsequent: 100 per underpaid employee per pay period underpaid unchanged by the 2024 acts | § 510 is in Part 2, Chapter 1, so § 558's first clause applies directly; the wage-order overtime provisions are 'hours and days of work' provisions under the second clause. § 558 is the civil penalty 'specifically provided', so the § 2699(f) default does not apply to § 510 (the site's corrected position; Dunlap and ZB treat § 558 as the PAGA penalty for overtime). Elements: initial vs subsequent (notice rule) |
| unpaid overtime, interest, § 1194 attorney's fees | Wages Payable to: employee | Not PAGA (ZB; § 558(a)(3)). | |
| § 1199 (misdemeanor for wage-order violations; also on the § 2699.5 list) | Outside PAGA by statute | Criminal; not a civil penalty. Pleaded occasionally; no PAGA recovery. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (§ 510, § 1194 listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c (delisted; curable with three years of wages plus 7% interest and fees))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity; exempt classifications (§ 515; Wage Order § 1)
Open questions
Pleading only § 1194 or § 1198 to reach the default's $100 rate rather than § 558's $50 initial rate
The instrument: § 558 governs the conduct whichever section is named; model at § 558 and flag a default-rate demand as an overstatement.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Zb N.A. v. Superior Court; Digest: Dunlap v. Superior Court; Digest: Amaral v. Cintas Corp No 2; Digest: Julia Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc.; Statute text: Lab. Code § 510, Lab. Code § 558, Lab. Code § 1194, Lab. Code § 1198, Lab. Code § 1199
Minimum wage§ 1197 → § 1197.1PAGA civil penalty
Hours paid below the applicable minimum, including unpaid off-the-clock time, unreimbursed required expenses that push net pay below the minimum, and piece-rate/nonproductive-time shortfalls (§ 226.2).
Duty provisions
- § 1197 (minimum wage fixed by the commission or statute)
- § 1182.12 (state rates)
- Wage Order § 4
- § 1194 (private right)
- local minimum wage ordinances (not Labor Code provisions)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1197.1(a)(1)–(2) | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | initialIntentional: 100; subsequentSameOffense: 250 per underpaid employee per pay period underpaid unchanged by the 2024 acts | Specifically provided; displaces the default for § 1197. Wages, § 1194.2 liquidated damages and § 203 penalties recovered under § 1197.1 are paid to the employee (§ 1197.1(a)(3)) and are not PAGA recoveries (ZB's reading of the parallel text). Elements: $100 only 'for any initial violation that is intentionally committed' · $250 'for each subsequent violation for the same specific offense ... regardless of whether the initial violation is intentionally committed' · whether 'subsequent' requires prior notice (Amaral/Gunther by analogy) is unresolved for § 1197.1 |
| § 1194.2 liquidated damages (equal to the unpaid minimum wages plus interest) | Liquidated damages Payable to: employee | Elements: good-faith defense requires reasonable grounds for believing the act was lawful; ignorance of the law does not suffice (Iloff) | |
| unpaid minimum wages, interest, § 1194 fees | Wages Payable to: employee |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (§§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1 listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c (delisted; curable))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity for PAGA (Stone), though § 1182.12(b)(3) defines 'employer' to include the state
Open questions
Does § 1197.1's $250 tier require prior notice of unlawfulness, or only a prior pay period of the same offense?
Employer-side reading: notice (Amaral/Gunther analogy)
Plaintiff-side reading: each pay period after the first is 'subsequent'
The instrument: Show both; the text's 'same specific offense' phrase supports the plaintiff reading more than § 2699(f)'s bare 'subsequent violation' did, so disclose that the employer-side figure rests on an analogy.
Local minimum wage ordinance underpayments: § 1197.1(a) reaches 'an applicable state or local law' for Labor Commissioner citations, but PAGA reaches violations 'of this code'; is a local-ordinance underpayment a § 1197.1 violation recoverable under PAGA?
The instrument: Classify as disputed; model as available with a flag.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Zb N.A. v. Superior Court; Digest: Dunlap v. Superior Court; Digest: Iloff v. Lapaille; Statute text: Lab. Code § 1197, Lab. Code § 1197.1, Lab. Code § 1194, Lab. Code § 1194.2, Lab. Code § 1182.12
Day of rest§§ 551, 552 → § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Seventh consecutive workday in a workweek without the employee's informed choice (Mendoza).
Duty provisions
- § 551 (one day's rest in seven)
- § 552 (no causing work more than six days in seven)
- § 556 (exemption under 30 hours/week and 6 hours/day)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 558 | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | initial: 50; subsequent: 100 per underpaid employee per pay period | §§ 551–552 are in Part 2, Chapter 1, so § 558's first clause applies; but the unit is 'underpaid employee', and a day-of-rest violation involves no underpayment unless seventh-day overtime was also unpaid. Where there is no underpayment the § 558 unit does not fit and the § 2699(f) default is the better-supported measure. |
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | Applied in Mendoza-type PAGA actions; the Mendoza digest records the posture. | |
| § 553 misdemeanor | Outside PAGA by statute |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity
Open questions
§ 558 or the default for a no-underpayment day-of-rest violation?
The instrument: Default; flag.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Mendoza v. Nordstrom Inc.; Statute text: Lab. Code § 551, Lab. Code § 552, Lab. Code § 553, Lab. Code § 558
Wage-order conditions§ 1198 → § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Reporting-time and split-shift premiums not paid; seating not provided (Kilby); uniform or tool costs shifted to employees; cash-shortage deductions.
Duty provisions
- § 1198 (employment under conditions prohibited by the wage order is unlawful) carrying Wage Order § 5 (reporting time pay), § 4(C) (split-shift premium), § 14 (suitable seats), § 9 (uniforms and equipment), § 8 (cash shortages), § 10 (meals and lodging), § 13 (change rooms), § 15 (temperature)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | Suitable-seating and other non-wage wage-order conditions are actionable through § 1198 and carry the default penalty (Bright; Home Depot); neither § 558 (hours and days of work) nor Wage Order § 20 (underpaid employees) supplies a specific penalty for them. Reporting-time and split-shift premiums are wages; whether their nonpayment is an 'hours and days of work' matter for § 558 is unsettled; modelled on the default with the § 558 alternative disclosed. | |
| reporting-time pay, split-shift premium, reimbursement of uniform/tool costs | Wages Payable to: employee |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (§ 1198 listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
public-entity (Stone: wage orders do not reach public employers except as specified)
Open questions
§ 558 vs default for reporting-time/split-shift nonpayment
The instrument: Default, with the § 558 figure shown as the lower alternative; the difference is $50 per employee per pay period in the initial period only.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Bright v. 99 Only Stores; Digest: Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Superior Court; Statute text: Lab. Code § 1198; sources/statutes/wage-orders/order-04.txt
D. Reimbursement, gratuities, classification, leave, notices, retaliation
Expense reimbursement§ 2802 → § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Unreimbursed personal cell phone, vehicle, uniform, tool, remote-work and training costs.
Duty provisions
- § 2802(a) (indemnify necessary expenditures)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | per aggrieved employee per pay period in which a reimbursable expense went unreimbursed | No specific civil penalty; § 2802(d) authorizes a Labor Commissioner citation for the amount due, which is restitution, not a penalty. |
| reimbursement with interest from the date incurred (§ 2802(b)) and attorney's fees as part of the recoverable amount (§ 2802(c)) | Wages Payable to: employee |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c (delisted; curable))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Open questions
Which pay periods carry a § 2802 violation?
The instrument: Only periods in which an unreimbursed expense was incurred or came due, not every period of employment.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 2802
Gratuities§ 351 → § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Tip pooling with ineligible participants, employer retention of service charges that are gratuities, credit-card fee deductions.
Duty provisions
- § 351 (gratuities are the employee's property; no deduction, credit, or credit-card-fee offset; payment by next payday)
- § 353 (records)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | § 351(b) (added by SB 648) lets the Labor Commissioner cite or sue 'for gratuities taken or withheld' using § 1197.1 procedures; that is recovery of the gratuities, not a civil penalty, so the default remains the PAGA measure. § 354 misdemeanor is not recoverable. | |
| the gratuities themselves | Restitution or equitable relief Payable to: employee | No private right of action under § 351 itself (Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens, not digested here); recoverable through the UCL or as the 'made whole' component of a cure. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a (listed))
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 351, Lab. Code § 353
Willful misclassification§ 226.8PAGA civil penalty
Treating employees as independent contractors; the wage-hour consequences are then pleaded under the ordinary predicates (C1–C3, B1, A1–A2).
Duty provisions
- § 226.8(a) (willful misclassification as an independent contractor; charging fees or deductions to a misclassified individual)
- § 2775 et seq. (ABC test) and § 3357 (presumption) supply the status rule but no penalty
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 226.8(b)–(c) | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | perViolation: 5,000–15,000; patternOrPractice: 10,000–25,000 for each violation (each willfully misclassified individual, on the reading applied by the Labor Commissioner; the statute does not say per pay period) | Recoverable through PAGA (Noe v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316, 338–339: a 'civil penalty' with no employee-payable language is state-enforced or PAGA-recoverable; the point was conceded there), against each employer that engaged in the willful misclassification, including a joint employer that knew and failed to remedy. Elements: 'willful misclassification' = voluntarily and knowingly misclassifying; a 'determination' by the LWDA or a court · § 226.8(g)(2): an employee may recover the amounts as damages in a Labor Commissioner or public-prosecutor enforcement, or enforce the civil penalty under § 2699(a), 'but not both, for the same violation' |
| § 226.8(e)–(f) posting order | Outside PAGA by statute | A posting requirement; § 2699(k)(2). |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(c (unlisted; 33-day cure)); post-reform: § 2699.3(c)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Open questions
Unit and amount within the range: who sets the figure within $5,000–$15,000 in a PAGA action?
The instrument: The court, exercising the agency's discretion under § 2699(e)(1); model the floor as the statutory minimum and the ceiling as the maximum per misclassified worker.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Noe v. Superior Court; Statute text: Lab. Code § 226.8, Lab. Code § 2775
Paid sick leave§§ 245.5–249 → § 2699(f)(2)PAGA civil penalty
Sick leave not accrued, not allowed to be used, or paid at the wrong rate; retaliation for use; balances not shown (§ 246(i)).
Duty provisions
- §§ 245.5–249 (Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act: accrual, use, notice on the wage statement or separate writing (§ 246(i)), anti-retaliation (§ 246.5))
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2699(f)(2) default | Civil penalty PAGA reaches Payable to: state/employees under § 2699(m) | pre: 100/200; post: 100; 50; 200 on (B) per aggrieved employee per pay period | Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742 holds that § 248.5(e)'s limitation of a person 'enforcing this article on behalf of the public' to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief refers to UCL enforcement, not a PAGA action, so civil penalties for violations of §§ 245.5–249 are recoverable by an aggrieved employee under PAGA (slip pp. 3, 25). Wood does not decide which schedule supplies the penalty; the default is the measure adopted here because §§ 245–249 provide no civil penalty that the LWDA assesses as such. |
| § 248.5(b)–(c) administrative penalties ($50 per day a paid sick day was unlawfully withheld, capped at $4,000 per employee; up to $50 per day for other violations, capped at $4,000; $50 per day for retaliation) | Disputed Payable to: the employee (b)(2) / the state (c) | Assessed by the Labor Commissioner in a citation; whether they are the civil penalty 'specifically provided' for Act violations within § 2699(f)'s opening clause, and so the PAGA measure in place of the default, is undecided (Wood, slip p. 16, treats PAGA as the vehicle for civil penalties 'otherwise recoverable by the LWDA' without reaching the schedule). The plaintiff-side reading would price long-running violations on the daily schedule up to the cap. | |
| injunctive, equitable or restitutionary relief; fees | Restitution or equitable relief | Through the UCL (§ 248.5(e)) or § 2699(k)(1). |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(c); post-reform: § 2699.3(c)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
posting-notice (§ 246(i) balance notice only, § 2699(k)(2))
Open questions
Whether the § 248.5(b)–(c) administrative penalties displace the § 2699(f) default as the civil penalty 'specifically provided' for Act violations.
Employer-side reading: The default: § 248.5 calls them 'administrative' penalties assessed in a citation, with a per-employee cap, and Wood treated the PAGA claim as one for civil penalties without reference to them.
Plaintiff-side reading: The § 248.5 schedule, which can exceed the default for a violation that continued for many days.
The instrument: Compute on the default; disclose the § 248.5 alternative.
Sources read for this row: Digest: Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; Digest: Iloff v. Lapaille; Statute text: Lab. Code § 245.5, Lab. Code § 246, Lab. Code § 248.5
Posting and notice requirements§ 2699(k)(2): outside PAGAOutside PAGA
Notices not given or posted.
Duty provisions
- § 2810.5 (wage theft prevention notice at hire and on change)
- § 207 (payday notice)
- § 1183 and Wage Order § 22 (posting of the order); § 226.8(e)–(f); § 246(i) and § 247 (sick leave poster); §§ 1102.8, 98.6? (posters)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| none through PAGA | Outside PAGA by statute | § 2699(k)(2): 'No action shall be brought under this part for any violation of a posting, notice, agency reporting, or filing requirement of this code, except if the filing or reporting requirement involves mandatory payroll or workplace injury reporting.' Same words pre-reform (former (g)(2)). |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(n/a); post-reform: § 2699.3(n/a)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
posting-notice
Open questions
Is a § 2810.5 notice that misstates the rate of pay a 'notice requirement' violation (excluded) or evidence of an underpayment (actionable under C2/C3)?
The instrument: Excluded as a predicate; usable as evidence.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 2699 (k)(2); Lab. Code § 2810.5; Lab. Code § 207
Retaliation penalties§§ 98.6, 1102.5: disputedDisputed or conditional
Adverse action against an employee for protected activity.
Duty provisions
- § 98.6 (retaliation for Labor Commissioner complaints, PAGA notices, wage complaints)
- § 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation)
- § 6310–6311 (Cal/OSHA retaliation)
- § 230 et seq. (protected leave retaliation; listed)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 98.6(b)(3): civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 per employee for each violation 'to be awarded to the employee or employees who suffered the violation'; § 1102.5(f)(1): the same, 'to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against' | Disputed | A civil penalty the Labor Commissioner assesses (§ 98.7), so within § 2699(a)'s words and on the § 2699.5 list; but the statutes direct the penalty to the retaliated employee, which conflicts with § 2699(m)'s 65/35 distribution and with the representative structure; no decision located resolves whether a PAGA plaintiff may recover these on behalf of others. The penalty is discretionary 'not exceeding' and keyed to the LC's assessment factors (§ 1102.5(f)(2)). | |
| reinstatement, lost wages, damages, fees | Restitution or equitable relief Payable to: employee |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(a (§§ 98.6, 1102.5, 6310, 6311, 230–230.8 listed)); post-reform: § 2699.3(a)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: no; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Open questions
PAGA recovery of employee-directed retaliation penalties
The instrument: Classify disputed; outside the wage-hour core, usually pleaded individually; model as excluded from the representative column with a note.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 98.6, Lab. Code § 1102.5, Lab. Code § 6310, Lab. Code § 6311, Lab. Code § 2699.5
Health and safetyDivision 5; § 2699.3(b) trackDisputed or conditional
Unsafe conditions pleaded as PAGA predicates.
Duty provisions
- Division 5 (§ 6300 et seq.) safety standards and regulations (e.g., heat illness, injury and illness prevention program, § 6401.7; COVID-era standards), other than §§ 6310, 6311, 6399.7 which are listed
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| Division 5 civil penalties (§§ 6427–6430 schedules assessed by the Division) or the § 2699(f) default | Conditional | Recoverable, if at all, only through the § 2699.3(b) track: notice to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health; if the Division issues a citation the employee may not sue; if it declines, the employee may challenge in court; a complaint must attach the notice. The § 2699.3(c) cure track applies if the Division fails to inspect. Division 5 penalty schedules are assessed per citation, not per employee per pay period. |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(b); post-reform: § 2699.3(b)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
agency-action (§ 2699.3(b)(2)(A)(i))
Open questions
Whether the per-pay-period default applies to a Division 5 standard with no penalty of its own
The instrument: Outside the wage-hour instrument; shown as a routing note only.
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 2699.3 (b); Lab. Code § 6310; Lab. Code § 6311
Violator with no employees§ 2699(f)(1): $500PAGA civil penalty
A person who does not employ one or more employees at the time of the violation (a sole owner misclassifying all workers).
Duty provisions
- any provision; § 2699(f)(1)
Remedies, by what the law makes them
| Provision | Kind | Rate and unit | What the authorities say |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2699(f)(1): $500 | Civil penalty PAGA reaches | per violation, not per employee or pay period | Distributed entirely to the agency (§ 2699(n); former (j)). |
Notice track
pre-reform: § 2699.3(depends on the predicate); post-reform: § 2699.3(same)
Cure eligible
pre-reform: yes; post-reform: yes
Exclusions
none
Sources read for this row: Statute text: Lab. Code § 2699 (f)(1), (n)
Cross-cutting rulesregime, standing, lookback, exclusions, rates, reductions, distribution, arbitration
regime
The amendments of AB 2288 (Stats. 2024, ch. 44) and SB 92 (Stats. 2024, ch. 45) apply to a civil action brought on or after June 19, 2024, except an action whose § 2699.3 notice (subd. (a)(1)(A), (b)(1) or (c)(1)(A)) was filed before June 19, 2024. The new § 2699.3 cure and early-evaluation procedures became operative October 1, 2024 (§ 2699.3(g)); between June 19 and September 30, 2024 the first SB 92 version of § 2699.3 governed.
Open: Whether 'civil action brought' and the notice-date exception are read together so that a post-June 19 action on a pre-June 19 notice is pre-reform in all respects (the text says the amendments 'shall not apply' to such an action). Treated as pre-reform throughout.
standing
pre: Aggrieved employee = any person employed by the alleged violator against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed (former § 2699(c)); an employee affected by at least one violation could pursue penalties for all violations alleged (Huff v. Securitas (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745), and a time-barred individual violation did not defeat standing (Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 924).
post: Aggrieved employee = any person employed by the alleged violator who personally suffered each of the violations alleged during the period prescribed under CCP § 340 (one year) (§ 2699(c)(1)); the Huff and Johnson rules are abrogated (Senate Judiciary analysis of AB 2288, June 23, 2024, p. 15: 'Supersedes holdings in Huff and Johnson'). Exception for nonprofit legal aid organizations as counsel of record (§ 2699(c)(2)). Recovery is on behalf of employees 'against whom a violation of the same provision was committed' (§ 2699(a), (k)(1)).
lookback
PAGA civil penalties carry the one-year limitations period of CCP § 340(a); the § 2699.3 periods are not counted (former § 2699.3(d); current § 2699.3(e)), which in practice adds the 65-day agency window (and, post-reform, any extension under § 2699.3(c)(2)(B)–(C)). The penalty period therefore runs back one year plus the tolled days from the filing of the civil action, counted in pay periods. Underlying wage claims carry their own periods (three years, CCP § 338(a); four years under the UCL) and are not PAGA recoveries.
Open: Whether the one-year period runs from the notice date or the complaint date for pay-period counting (the notice tolls; the action commences the claim). The matrix counts pay periods within one year before the notice plus the tolled interval, which is the conservative employer-side count; the plaintiff-side count is stated alongside.
exclusions
public-entity
A public entity is not a 'person' under § 2699(b) and Lab. Code § 18 and is outside PAGA entirely, for default and for specifically provided civil penalties alike (Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040). Several wage provisions also do not apply to public employers by their own terms (§ 220(a)–(b); § 226(i)).
posting-notice
No PAGA action lies for a violation of a posting, notice, agency reporting or filing requirement, except a filing or reporting requirement involving mandatory payroll or workplace injury reporting (§ 2699(k)(2); former § 2699(g)(2), same words except 'if' for 'where').
agency-action
No PAGA action lies if the agency, on the same facts and theories, cites the employer within the § 2699.3 timeframes for a violation of the same section, or initiates a § 98.3 proceeding (§ 2699(l); former § 2699(h)); in the Division 5 track a citation by the Division bars the action (§ 2699.3(b)(2)(A)(i)).
cba-carveouts
PAGA does not apply to construction employees under a qualifying CBA (§ 2699.6, until January 1, 2038) or to qualifying janitorial employees (§ 2699.8, until July 1, 2028).
sick-leave-not-excluded
Paid sick leave (§§ 245–249) is NOT excluded: Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742 holds that § 248.5(e)'s limitation of a person enforcing the article 'on behalf of the public' to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief refers to UCL enforcement, not a PAGA action, so civil penalties for Act violations are recoverable under PAGA. Only the § 246(i) balance notice falls under § 2699(k)(2). Row D4 carries the schedule question.
rates default
reductions post
weekly: The penalty recovered is reduced by one-half if the employees' regular pay period is weekly rather than biweekly or semimonthly (§ 2699(o)); post-reform only; the text is unqualified ('the penalty recovered pursuant to this part').
cure: An employer that satisfies (g) or (h) and cures pays no civil penalty for the cured violation; an employer that cures a § 226(a) violation as defined in (d)(2) pays none; any other employer that cures pays no more than $15 per employee per pay period for the CCP § 340 period (§ 2699(j)). Cure is defined in § 2699(d) and runs through the § 2699.3(c)(2) small-employer agency track (fewer than 100 employees), the § 2699.3(c)(3) § 226-only track, or the § 2699.3(f) early evaluation conference; one cure per 12 months for the same provisions (§ 2699.3(d)).
discretion: A court may award less than the maximum, including less than the (g)/(h) amounts, or more than those caps, where the result would otherwise be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory (§ 2699(e)(2)); no method is prescribed (Taduran v. Glidewell (2026)). The pre-reform (e)(2) carried the same standard without the cap cross-references.
distribution
pre: 75% LWDA / 25% aggrieved employees (former § 2699(i))
post: 65% / 35% (§ 2699(m)); (f)(1) $500 penalties go entirely to the agency (§ 2699(n)); the 2016 text's (j) was the same carve-out.
arbitration
An agreement may require arbitration of the plaintiff's individual PAGA claim (Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639), but the plaintiff keeps standing to litigate the non-individual claims, which the court may stay pending arbitration; an arbitral determination, once confirmed, that the plaintiff is or is not an aggrieved employee binds the court action (Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104; Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment (2024)). Whether a plaintiff may plead only non-individual claims ('headless' action) is divided (Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (2024) vs Leeper v. Shipt (2024) and the 2025 line) and is before the Supreme Court in Leeper (S289305, review granted April 16, 2025; no decision indexed as of October 21, 2026). The employer's group-wide exposure is unchanged by the arbitration of individual claims except through the contingency that the arbitrator finds no violation as to the plaintiff.
For illustrative purposes only. Every figure is the statutory maximum on the stated inputs under the reading named beside it, computed from the schedules in the Labor Code; none is a probable award or a settlement value. The court may award less than any maximum, including less than the capped amounts, under § 2699(e)(2). Classifications follow the statutory recoverability matrix of October 2026, which records the authorities and the questions they leave open; the matrix, the engine and this page are published together so they cannot disagree.
Other Tools
PAGA Penalty Estimator
Three-scenario exposure model
Regular Rate Calculator
Ferra and Alvarado methodology
Penalty Cap Qualifier
15% and 30% documentation
Statute of Limitations Calculator
PAGA vs. underlying lookback
Derivative Penalty Mapper
Naranjo penalty cascade
PAGA Reform Decision Tree
Post-reform strategic routing
Wage Statement Compliance Checker
Nine elements of § 226(a)
For illustrative purposes only. This tool does not constitute legal advice.