Recent and pending California cases address PAGA issues

29 May 2025 2 min read

At a glance

In July 2024, California enacted AB 2288 and SB 92, which reduce penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for employers who take 'all reasonable steps' to comply with the Labor Code before or after receiving a PAGA notice.
Several recent and pending cases could impact PAGA risk and litigation.
Employers are encouraged to consider proactive measures to mitigate PAGA risk and monitor pending cases.

California’s PAGA has affected employers for years, creating exposure for technical violations of the state’s Labor Code and hindering mandatory arbitration of representative claims. Employers sought amendments to PAGA through a public ballot initiative, but a compromise was reached prior to the election. In July 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2288 and Senate Bill 92, which significantly reformed the law. The reforms reduced PAGA penalties for employers that (1) take 'all reasonable steps' to comply with the Labor Code prior to receiving a PAGA notice or a request for employment records, and (2) take 'all reasonable steps' to comply with the Labor Code on a prospective basis after receiving a PAGA notice.

Several recent and pending cases could impact PAGA risk and litigation, including:

In Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC, a California Court of Appeal held that the representative plaintiff must satisfy PAGA's one-year statute of limitations for a PAGA claim and that 'the PAGA plaintiff must bring a PAGA action within one year of the last Labor Code violation he or she individually suffered.'
In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, a California Court of Appeal concluded that blanket, advance meal waivers for shifts between five and six hours are enforceable so long as there is no coercion or other influence that would discourage employees from taking meal periods.
In Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the California Supreme Court will address whether employers are permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for payroll purposes.
In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., the California Supreme Court will consider whether every PAGA action necessarily includes both individual and group claims and whether a plaintiff can choose to only bring a group claim.

Employers are encouraged to consider proactive measures to mitigate PAGA risk and monitor pending cases.