By yonah · 2026-01-08 · 8 min read
The Private Attorneys General Act has a one-year statute, a $75 filing fee, and a notice requirement that cannot be cured. The procedural mechanics that California employees and employment counsel cannot afford to get wrong.
Updated September 2026 to work through the 2024 PAGA amendments, including the change to standing.
California employees who experience wage-and-hour violations frequently have three parallel claims: an individual Labor Code action, a class action on behalf of similarly-situated employees, and a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The PAGA component is, in many wage-and-hour cases, the highest-value claim, and the most procedurally fragile.
PAGA is codified at Labor Code § 2698 et seq. It authorizes an aggrieved employee, acting as a private attorney general, to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for Labor Code violations committed against the employee and against other current or former employees. Seventy-five percent of any PAGA recovery goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; twenty-five percent goes to the aggrieved employees.
PAGA has a one-year statute of limitations measured from the violation, with limited tolling during the pendency of the LWDA notice period. Wage claims under the Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law have longer statutes (three years and four years respectively), but the PAGA penalty claim runs on the shorter PAGA clock. Filing the wage suit first and the PAGA notice second is a common, expensive mistake.
Before filing a PAGA action, the aggrieved employee must give written notice to the LWDA and to the employer, identifying the specific Labor Code provisions alleged to have been violated and the facts and theories supporting each alleged violation. Labor Code § 2699.3. The notice must be filed online through the LWDA portal, accompanied by a $75 filing fee, and a copy must be served on the employer by certified mail.
The LWDA has sixty-five days to investigate and elect whether to pursue the claim itself. If the agency declines (which it does in the overwhelming majority of cases), or fails to respond within that period, the employee may file suit.
California courts have invalidated PAGA notices that are vague, conclusory, or that merely recite statutory language without supporting facts. The notice must identify the specific Labor Code provisions, the alleged conduct that violates each provision, and the facts that support each allegation. Courts apply a fact-specificity standard derived from Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 and its progeny.
A boilerplate notice is a defective notice, and a defective notice is a statutory bar. The fix-the-notice strategy after suit is filed does not work. By the time the employer demurs to the PAGA cause of action, the one-year statute has likely run on the claim that the corrected notice would have covered.
The reform package enacted in mid-2024 (AB 2288 and SB 92) applies to PAGA notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, and it altered the analysis at the threshold rather than at the margins. The most consequential change is to standing. An aggrieved employee may now pursue penalties only for Labor Code violations that the employee personally suffered. The prior practice, under which a plaintiff who experienced one violation could represent employees as to violations the plaintiff never experienced, no longer holds. That single change decides the scope of many cases before any question of merits arises, and it makes the identity of the named plaintiff a strategic decision rather than an administrative one.
The one-year window now does the same work twice. The violations the plaintiff personally suffered must fall within the year preceding the notice, so a plaintiff whose own last violation predates that window may lack standing entirely even though other employees were affected well inside it.
The reforms gave employers a structured way to reduce exposure through compliance. An employer that took all reasonable steps to comply before receiving the notice faces penalties capped at 15 percent of the amount otherwise available. An employer that takes all reasonable steps within 60 days after the notice faces a 30 percent cap. What counts as reasonable steps is fact-driven, and typically includes payroll audits, updated policies, supervisor training, and correcting practices once identified.
Cure procedures were expanded along two tracks. Employers with fewer than 100 employees may submit a confidential proposal to cure through the LWDA. Employers at or above that threshold may request an early evaluation conference and a stay from the court. Both tracks are designed to resolve straightforward violations before the case becomes a representative action, and both reward employers who move quickly.
Penalty amounts themselves were adjusted. Isolated, short-duration errors and derivative wage statement violations no longer carry the full default penalty in every case, while the employee share of recovered penalties rose from 25 percent to 35 percent. Courts also have express authority to limit the scope of claims and evidence, which has practical consequences for how a representative case is tried.
The statutory changes sit on top of an active line of decisions: Viking River Cruises (2022), on compelling individual PAGA claims to arbitration, and Adolph v. Uber (2023), holding that an employee whose individual claim is sent to arbitration retains standing to pursue the representative claim in court. Any PAGA practitioner is operating against a moving target, and both the statute and the case law continue to shift.
Treat any wage-and-hour matter as a PAGA matter from day one. Calendar the one-year clock. Draft the LWDA notice with the same care you would draft a complaint. File it on time, file it properly, and file it before, not after, the underlying suit. The procedural mechanics decide the case before the merits do.
This article is general information about California law. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney who knows the facts of your situation.
Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Yasmeh Law Group, and neither does contacting the firm. That relationship begins only after a conflicts check and a signed written engagement agreement. Do not send confidential information before then.
The statutes and deadlines described were accurate as understood on 2026-01-08. California law changes and any rule depends on the particular facts. Case results mentioned do not guarantee a similar outcome. Yasmeh Law Group practices only in California.
Serving Van Nuys, CA, Los Angeles County, and California. This page is informational and does not create an attorney-client relationship.