Average PAGA Settlement and Verdict

By Douglas Wade, Attorney

Email  |  Call (800) 484-4610

Get Smarter. Search FAQs.

PAGA Claim

The average PAGA settlement or judgement is truly an inaccurate method of determining the settlement value of a PAGA claim; this is demonstrated below with specific cases and PAGA settlement or verdict. The reason is the PAGA claim is based on arithmetic and the size of aggrieved employees.   In PAGA, the Legislature created an enforcement mechanism for aggrieved employees to file representative actions to recover penalties in cases in which there is no private cause of action as an alternative to enforcement by the Labor Commissioner.

An employee plaintiff suing, as here, under the PAGA, does so as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. The act’s declared purpose is to supplement enforcement actions by public agencies, which lack adequate resources to bring all such actions themselves.

In a lawsuit brought under the act, the employee plaintiff represents the same legal right and interest as state labor law enforcement agencies—namely, recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the Labor Workforce Development Agency.

Gwin v. Natvan, Inc. $110,000 Judgment

2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6629

Following the tentative verdicts, and a mandatory settlement conference, the parties reached a settlement agreement in February 2018. The settlement agreement encompassed both Gwin’s claims and those of another former Natvan employee named Amber Donnell, who separately had filed suit.

The settlement agreement included a recitation of the matter’s procedural history, including the tentative verdicts. Gwin and the defendants agreed to a stipulated money judgment of $110,000 in Gwin’s favor (not including PAGA penalties). This included $51,250 in economic damages (comprised of the amounts in the tentative verdict for unpaid overtime and vacation, and slightly larger amount for meal and rest breaks than set forth in the tentative verdicts), $9,500 in non-economic damages and $3,250 in statutory penalties (an amount greater than the tentative verdicts), $6,000 in punitive damages (the same amount in the tentative verdicts, which imposed $3,000 in punitive damages against Natvan and the same amount against Gi), and an unallocated $40,000 “settlement compromise payment.” [*8]

Paprock v. First Transit, Inc. $11.5 Million Judgment

(May 18, 2015, No. D064697) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3430].)

By separate written order filed September 13, the court approved the parties’ written settlement agreement, [*10]  class counsel and the claims administrator; redefined the settlement class consistent with the terms of the agreement; authorized payment of attorney fees, costs, incentive awards and claims administration compensation; and entered a final judgment under which the court retained jurisdiction for purposes of effectuating the settlement (Judgment).

The Judgment effected the settlement, which required First Transit to pay up to $11.5 million — with up to approximately $6.89 million potentially going to the employee class members.

Alonzo v. First Transit, Inc. $10,000 Settlement

2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7198

The parties conducted discovery and reached a settlement in February 2013 following two days of mediation. In June 2013 the trial court preliminarily approved a settlement pursuant to which First Transit agreed to pay up to $2 million to settle the class claims. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to file a third amended complaint that added claims for civil penalties under PAGA, and First Transit agreed to pay $10,000 of the settlement amount to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to resolve the PAGA claims. The settlement agreement did not distribute to the aggrieved employees any of the $10,000 allocated to the PAGA claims.

Amaral v. Cintas Corp. $258,9000

163 Cal. App. 4th 1157

Nor has Cintas shown the penalty award is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. Cintas claims the imposition of $258,900 in penalties is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive because the LWO is ambiguous [***108] and it was unclear whether or to what extent it applied to the work plaintiffs performed. However, several facts support the trial court’s decision to impose full penalties. Based on undisputed facts, the court found Cintas was on notice that the LWO applied to its operations but made no attempt to comply with the ordinance. Although the court stopped short of finding the company’s Labor Code violations to be “willful,” the court chastised Cintas’s “cavalier approach to fulfilling its contractual and statutory obligations” and suggested its conduct could be characterized as gross negligence or reckless disregard. Cintas also argues the penalties were unfairly inflated because it pays employees on a weekly basis. Under the court’s interpretation of former sections 210 and 225.5 that penalties are to be assessed per pay period, Cintas complains its penalties were arbitrarily higher than they would have been if it had paid its employees less often. The frequency of an employer’s [**618] pay periods can cut both ways, of course, since employees who are paid on a monthly basis will recover lower penalties than employees who receive paychecks more frequently. However, we must presume the trial court considered [***109] this argument and determined it did not warrant a reduction of Cintas’s penalties. This conclusion was well within the court’s discretion.

Finally, the $ 258,900 penalty assessment is not confiscatory. The court received evidence that Cintas’s parent company had $ 2.81 billion in sales and $ 272 million in profits during fiscal year 2004. The penalty award is certainly not “astronomical” in comparison. (See, e.g., City and County of San Francisco v. Sainez (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1318–1319 [92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418] [approving $ 663,000 penalty for housing code violations, which represented about 28.4 percent of the defendants’ net worth].) The penalty award, which [***110] totaled less than one-third of the plaintiffs’ $ 804,783 damage award, was also proportional to Cintas’s misconduct. (See Kinney v. Vaccari (1980) 27 Cal.3d 348, 356 [165 Cal. Rptr. 787, 612 P.2d 877] [punitive assessment should be proportional to defendant’s misconduct, sufficient to achieve penalty’s deterrent purpose, and not constitutionally excessive].)

In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce the PAGA penalties pursuant to section 2699, subdivision (e)(2).


Gwin v. Natvan, Inc. $60,000 Settlement

2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6629

The parties also agreed to a stipulated money judgment of $60,000 in PAGA penalties “for Labor Code violations committed by Natvan” applicable to both the Gwin and Donnell lawsuits. The agreement included a formula by which Gwin and Donnell would participate in the PAGA penalties. The parties also executed a guaranty whereby Gi and his spouse agreed to guarantee and pay “all amounts included in the judgment” entered in connection with the settlement agreement, and that Gwin would have recourse to both the marital community property as well as the separate property of the guarantors.

Britto v. Zep Inc. $275,000

2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6855

In January 2013, while the claims in this case were pursued by Britto and Cowan individually, Plaintiffs made a settlement demand of $1,007,331.08 ($910,500 of which was for PAGA penalties), excluding fees and costs.

In February 2013, Zep filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against Britto, in part on the ground that Britto had filed for bankruptcy without disclosing the claims he had against Zep.

While the summary judgment motion was pending, Zep made a settlement offer to Britto and Cowan pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 with respect to their individual claims and PAGA penalties. Plaintiffs accepted the offer on July 9, 2013.

By the terms of the offer of compromise, (1) Britto would receive $26,000, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees in an amount to be determined [*7] by the court “in accordance with law”; (2) Cowan would receive $22,000, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the court “in accordance with law”; (3) civil penalties would be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) pursuant to PAGA in the amount of $275,000, plus costs and attorney fees to be determined by the court “in accordance with law”; and (4) dismissal would become effective after the court approved the amount and allocation of PAGA penalties.

****

In addition, Zep argues, the $275,000 in PAGA penalties was a fraction of the $1.7 million Plaintiffs initially sought. However, the question is not whether Plaintiffs settled for less than they originally wanted, but whether they recovered an amount of significance. It is reasonable to conclude they did.

Hawkins v. City of L.A. $20,000

2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5989

The jury found for plaintiffs on their Bane Act and whistleblower causes of action but against them on their federal civil rights claims. The jury also found against Hawkins on his FEHA cause of action. As to the Bane Act cause of action, the jury found that the City engaged in conduct that interfered or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion with plaintiffs’ right to complain about a supervisor engaging in conduct inconsistent with the Vehicle Code. As to the section 1102.5 cause of action for retaliation, the jury found that plaintiffs’ disclosure that a supervisor pressured hearing examiners to change decisions [*11] was a contributing factor to the City’s decision to fire plaintiffs. The City, however, did not prove it would have fired plaintiffs for legitimate, independent reasons even if they had not complained. The jury awarded Hawkins $238,531 and Kim $188,631 in damages, respectively.

The trial court assessed a $20,000 penalty under PAGA and awarded plaintiffs $1,054,286.88 in attorney fees.

Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc. $53,293.50

29 Cal. App. 5th 778

The evidence established that employees lost three to five minutes of a 30-minute break. The court awarded $227,190.73 “for the 22,220 instances in which the unrounded time records reflect breaks of less than 30 minutes.”

“[F]or the employees who lost three to five minutes of a 30 minute break, they are not entitled to recover minimum wages for all or any portion of the meal period. [***8] Their exclusive remedy is a meal period premium under Labor Code section 226.7.”

No waiting time penalties applied, because no minimum wages were owed for the shortened meal periods “and the meal period premiums that are owing for the shortened meal periods are not a wage that could trigger waiting time penalties.”8Link to the text of the note

The court awarded the class $53,293.50 in civil penalties under PAGA. Plaintiffs sought civil penalties under section 558 for noncompliant meal periods totaling $409,950, but the court exercised its discretion to reduce the penalties to 13 percent of the full amount. (On average, plaintiffs were deprived of 13 percent of the 30-minute meal period.) The court found the full penalty would be “unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory” under section 2699, subdivision (e)(2). No civil penalties were owing under section 1197.1 for unpaid minimum wages.

Julie Gunther v Alaska Airlines $25,000,000

Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-00037849-CU-OE-NC

For the foregoing reasons, the Court enters judgment for Plaintiff. The Court awards the following monetary awards:

  • penalties to Plaintiff under Labor Code § 226(e) in the amount of $4,000.00
  • PAGA penalties (of which 75% shall be awarded to the State of California and 25% shall be awarded to the aggrieved-employees) in the amount of $25,010,158.00

Defendant is hereby ORDERED:

  • to submit to the Court a proposed method for distribution of the applicable penalties to the aggrieved-employees by October 11,2019, and
  • to comply with the equitable relief ordered herein.

Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.

See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment

Most recent blogs:

CA Exempt Salary 2025 - Minimum Wage and Exemption Updates for California Employers

CA Exempt Salary 2025: Minimum Wage and Exemption Updates for California Employers

California's 2025 exempt salary threshold increases to $68,640 annually, with minimum wage rising to $16.50 statewide. New laws also impact sick leave, union exemptions, captive audience meetings, and driver’s license requirements for job postings.
How Long to Keep Payroll Records in California - Employer Rules for 2025

How Long to Keep Payroll Records in California: Employer Rules for 2025

Employers in California must retain payroll and personnel records for up to four years to remain compliant with 2025 regulations. Digital and physical storage methods, I-9 rules, and supervisor training responsibilities are also covered in the updated requirements.
California Fair Chance Act - Updates Employers Need to Know About Criminal History Rules

California Fair Chance Act: Updates Employers Need to Know About Criminal History Rules

Employers in California must follow stricter rules on criminal history checks under the updated Fair Chance Act from October 2023. New regulations expand definitions, require tailored evaluations, and mandate written notices before rejecting candidates due to conviction records.
Breaks in California - Detailed Guide to Rest and Meal Break Rules for Employers

Breaks in California: Detailed Guide to Rest and Meal Break Rules for Employers

California employers must follow detailed rules for rest and meal breaks, including timing, written waivers, and compensation requirements. Improper or missed breaks can result in legal action, wage penalties, and issues related to industry-specific labor standards.
California Labor Code 1198.5 - Employee Rights to Personnel Records and Employer Compliance Guide

California Labor Code 1198.5: Employee Rights to Personnel Records and Employer Compliance Guide

Employees in California can request access to personnel and payroll records under strict timelines defined by Labor Code 1198.5. Employers must comply with requests within 21 to 30 days or face penalties for noncompliance with record access laws.
Reporting Time Pay in California - Worker Rights, Employer Rules, and How to Calculate It

Reporting Time Pay in California: Worker Rights, Employer Rules, and How to Calculate It

California workers must be paid for reporting time if sent home early or given fewer hours than scheduled. This article covers when wages apply, what exceptions exist, and how employers calculate the correct amount under state law.
California Wrongful Termination Checklist - A Full Guide to Employee Rights and Legal Protections

California Wrongful Termination Checklist: A Full Guide to Employee Rights and Legal Protections

Fired in California for reporting misconduct, discrimination, or taking leave? This checklist breaks down employee rights and wrongful termination claims.
California Labor Code 203 - Employer Guide to Penalties, Defenses, and Compliance Measures

California Labor Code 203: Employer Guide to Penalties, Defenses, and Compliance Measures

California Labor Code 203 imposes steep penalties for late final pay, requiring strict employer compliance. This guide covers penalty triggers, common mistakes, defenses, and steps to prevent wage claim liability.
When Is a Doctor’s Note Required for Work in California - Employee Rights, Sick Leave Rules, and Employer Policies

When Is a Doctor’s Note Required for Work in California? Employee Rights, Sick Leave Rules, and Employer Policies

California employees can use paid sick leave without a doctor's note unless absences exceed three consecutive days. Employers may request documentation only if policies are applied fairly, non-retaliatory, and consistent with privacy laws.
California Labor Code 2699 Reform- What Employers Should Know About the 2024 PAGA Amendments

California Labor Code 2699 Reform: What Employers Should Know About the 2024 PAGA Amendments

California’s 2024 PAGA amendments change employer obligations, lower penalties, and set faster resolution methods for labor disputes. Companies should check compliance policies, wage practices, and training to prevent costly Private Attorneys General Act claims.
California Termination Laws Final Pay- What Employees Should Know About Last Paychecks and Penalties

California Termination Laws Final Pay: What Employees Should Know About Last Paychecks and Penalties

California employees are entitled to timely final paychecks after quitting or termination, with strict rules based on job type. Employers risk daily penalties up to 30 days if they delay owed wages or ignore payment regulations.
California Workplace Violence Prevention Plan- Employer Responsibilities

California Workplace Violence Prevention Plan: Employer Responsibilities

California employers must establish a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan by July 1, 2024, under Senate Bill 553 requirements. This plan includes risk assessments, employee training, incident reporting, crisis response, and recordkeeping to promote workplace safety.
Is It Illegal to Discuss Wages at Work What Employers and Employees Should Know

Is It Illegal to Discuss Wages at Work? What Employers and Employees Should Know

Employees have the legal right to discuss wages at work, even if company policies say otherwise. Employers can support fair pay and open communication to help maintain trust and reduce workplace conflicts.
How Long to Keep Pay Stubs and Payroll Records- IRS, FLSA, and Legal Rules Business Owners Should Know

How Long to Keep Pay Stubs and Payroll Records: IRS, FLSA, and Legal Rules Business Owners Should Know

Keep payroll records and pay stubs organized to meet IRS, FLSA, and legal requirements for audits, claims, or disputes. Storing records digitally reduces space use and keeps documents available beyond the required minimum retention periods.
California Mileage Rate 2025 IRS Figure, Reimbursement Policy, and Employer Instructions

California Mileage Rate 2025: IRS Figure, Reimbursement Policy, and Employer Instructions

California’s mileage reimbursement rate in 2025 is 70 cents per business mile, covering fuel, maintenance, insurance, and depreciation. Employers must ensure reimbursement complies with Labor Code Section 2802 and requires accurate mileage records from employees.
California Labor Code Section 2802- Employer Reimbursement Rules for Work Expenses

California Labor Code Section 2802: Employer Reimbursement Rules for Work Expenses

California employers must reimburse workers for necessary expenses like phones, internet, mileage, and home office equipment. Employees can recover unpaid reimbursements through Labor Commissioner claims or class action lawsuits against violating employers.
Double Time California- When Employers Are Required to Pay Twice the Regular Hourly Rate and How It Is Calculated

Double Time California: When Employers Are Required to Pay Twice the Regular Hourly Rate and How It Is Calculated

California employers must pay double-time wages in situations like 12-hour shifts or working seven days without a break. This article covers who qualifies, common payroll mistakes, and how double-time compensation should be figured under California law.
Tip Pooling Rules in Every State- What Restaurant Owners Must Know

Tip Pooling Rules in Every State: What Restaurant Owners Must Know

Tip pooling laws vary by state, affecting how restaurants manage tips and comply with federal and local wage rules. Restaurant owners are required to follow guidelines to avoid fines, lawsuits, and disputes over tip distribution and service charges.
How Long Does an Employer Have to Pay You After Payday in California- Legal Timeframes, Rules, and Consequences

How Long Does an Employer Have to Pay You After Payday in California: Legal Timeframes, Rules, and Consequences

Employers in California must pay wages on time or face fines, including back pay and waiting time penalties for delayed checks. Employees may pursue compensation for late or missing pay through legal claims tied to payroll violations under state labor law.
CA Exempt Employee Classification- Definitions, Exemptions, and Legal Exposure for Employers

CA Exempt Employee Classification: Definitions, Exemptions, and Legal Exposure for Employers

Employers risk lawsuits and large settlements when CA workers are misclassified under state exemption rules. Roles must be reviewed regularly to match duties.
How to Get a Job at 14- Simple Steps for Teens Who Want to Start Working

How to Get a Job at 14: Simple Steps for Teens Who Want to Start Working

Many teens can get jobs at 14 with the right documents, clear goals, and a simple but effective resume. This article explains rules, permits, applications, interviews, and ways to stay focused during your first job search.
How Many Hours Can a 17-Year-Old Work in California During School Labor Rules You Should Know

How Many Hours Can a 17-Year-Old Work in California During School? Labor Rules You Should Know

California limits how many hours 17-year-olds can work during school to protect their safety, education, and wages. Know the labor rules that apply to minors and what families should do if employers violate state employment laws.
AB 1228 Summary - California Fast Food Law on Wages, Council Authority, and Business Impact

AB 1228 Summary: California Fast Food Law on Wages, Council Authority, and Business Impact

California's AB 1228 law sets a $20 hourly wage for fast food workers and forms a state-level Fast Food Council. It changes employment rules, impacts exempt pay requirements, and raises business cost issues for restaurants and their customers.
Can a 13 Year Old Work - 14 Real Ways for Young Teens to Earn Money Safely

Can a 13 Year Old Work? 14 Real Ways for Young Teens to Earn Money Safely

A 13-year-old can safely earn money through creative, age-appropriate jobs like babysitting, pet care, or blogging. This guide lists 14 proven options that balance responsibility, fun, and parental supervision.
Severance Pay California - What It Includes and How to Change the Terms

Severance Pay California: What It Includes and How to Change the Terms

California severance pay is not legally required, but agreements often include pay, benefits, and legal waivers. Employees can negotiate terms, challenge clauses, and improve severance offers with legal or personal review.
Employment Litigation - Key Issues in Job Termination, Discrimination, and Harassment Cases

Employment Litigation: Key Issues in Job Termination, Discrimination, and Harassment Cases

Employees may sue for job termination, discrimination, or harassment when workplace actions violate federal or state employment rules. This article explains legal protections, common violations, and employee rights involved in workplace-related lawsuits.
Company Morale - 20 Practical Ways to Improve Workplace Culture and Engagement

Company Morale: 20 Practical Ways to Improve Workplace Culture and Engagement

Improve company morale with 20 practical tactics that strengthen workplace culture, boost motivation, and support everyday team interaction. Encourage positivity, increase retention, and support employee satisfaction through real-world practices designed for today's professional environment.
California Mileage Reimbursement 2025 - Rate Details, Methods, and Employer Duties

California Mileage Reimbursement 2025: Rate Details, Methods, and Employer Duties

California employers must reimburse staff for business-related vehicle use based on mileage rates or alternative approved methods. The 2025 policy outlines IRS rates, covered expenses, and mandatory employer responsibilities under California labor law.
Temporary Disability California - Workers’ Compensation Coverage, Benefit Limits, and Qualifying Conditions

Temporary Disability California: Workers’ Compensation Coverage, Benefit Limits, and Qualifying Conditions

Temporary disability in California pays part of your wages after a workplace injury confirmed by an approved medical provider. Eligibility, time limits, and payment amounts depend on work status, legal codes, employer options, and medical updates.
Legal Age to Work in 2025- Employment Limits for Minors

Legal Age to Work in 2025: Employment Limits for Minors

State and federal laws set age, hour, and job restrictions for minors working in 2025 to protect their safety. Review employment limits for children across all fifty states, including agricultural rules, certificates, and non-hazardous job requirements.

Free Consultation