Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different - 2026 Edition

130 | 2026 Cal-Peculiarities ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP  www.seyfarth.com supported by facts and existing law (or a good-faith argument for extension of the law); and (3) affirmative acknowledgments that template or boilerplate claims undermine the Agency’s enforcement role. The LWDA expressly criticizes the use of PAGA notices as a “bargaining chip” to extract quick settlements and fees, and frames these provisions as safeguards necessary to prevent abusive practices. Formalized cure procedures. The proposed regulations formalize and detail the administrative cure and early-resolution procedures from the 2024 amendments. Key features include: (1) detailed rules governing employer cure proposals, including content, timing, and submission requirements; (2) agency-administered early evaluation and resolution conferences to assess whether alleged violations have been corrected; and (3) confidentiality protections for cure communications, generally treating them as settlement discussions under Evidence Code section 1152. Added settlement requirements. The LWDA’s proposal significantly expands settlement oversight requirements for PAGA actions. In addition to submitting the proposed settlement agreement itself, settling plaintiffs must provide the LWDA with: (1) copies of motions, memoranda, and declarations submitted to the court in support of settlement approval; (2) at least 45 days for LWDA review before judicial approval; and (3) notice to other employees who have pending PAGA notices or actions against the same employer. The regulations also prohibit claimants from amending PAGA notices to add new violations after a settlement is reached, a provision aimed at preventing strategic behavior and overlapping settlements. Lastly, the regulations would provide that a private agreement entered after a PAGA notice is filed—but before a PAGA complaint is filed—may not release PAGA claims belonging to the State or other employees. 5.15.4 Other preceding PAGA amendments Earlier reform legislation mitigated certain other aspects of PAGA. The principal reform measures after PAGA’s initial enactment were as follows. DLSE exhaustion requirement. Following the 2004 amendment, employees challenging certain Labor Code violations must, before suing, give written notice to the LWDA of the specific violation, to enable the LWDA to investigate and cite the employer for the violation, in which case a private lawsuit cannot proceed.450 The LWDA has 60 days to notify the employee that it intends to investigate the alleged violation, in which case a private lawsuit cannot proceed.451 If the LWDA gives notice that it does not intend to investigate or the LWDA does not act with 65 days, then the employee may file a PAGA action.452 A PAGA claim is deficient if the notice to the LWDA and the employer failed to provide sufficient “facts and theories” for the alleged Labor Code violation.453 The Court of Appeal thus held that a PAGA plaintiff who complains of untimely payment of termination wages on behalf of all aggrieved employees cannot proceed if the LWDA notice refers only to the plaintiff’s own situation.454 A 2020 Court of Appeal decision, however, reasoned that the “facts and theories” alleged in an LWDA letter “need not ‘satisfy a particular threshold of weightiness,’” and held that a PAGA plaintiff had adequately exhausted administrative remedies by alleging in his LWDA letter that the employer had knowingly permitted employees to work off the clock, had unlawfully rounded work time, had automatically deducted 30 minutes of pay for meal periods not taken, and had manipulated time to avoid overtime wages.455 Courts have further diminished the significance of PAGA exhaustion requirements by holding that plaintiffs may pursue certain penalties without first contacting the DLSE. These are “statutory penalties” — those that employees could collect directly, pre-PAGA (e.g., waiting-time penalties). These courts would apply the exhaustion requirement only as to “civil penalties,” defined as those penalties that only the Labor Commissioner

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4