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:

Exempt Employee California 2025 Rules, Salary Thresholds & Classification Tests Explained

Exempt Employee California: 2025 Rules, Salary Thresholds & Classification Tests Explained

California's 2025 exempt employee rules include new salary thresholds for fast food and healthcare workers under state wage laws. Detailed tests determine exemption status based on duties, salary structure, and consistent application of independent judgment.
Fair Chance Employers A 2025 Guide to Compliant and Inclusive Hiring Practices

Fair Chance Employers: A 2025 Guide to Compliant and Inclusive Hiring Practices

Fair chance hiring promotes compliance with evolving state and federal laws that support inclusive recruitment for applicants with records. Employers must assess convictions individually, follow proper procedures, and align background checks with job relevance and legal standards.
PAGA Claims in California How Workers Can File and What Penalties Employers Face

PAGA Claims in California: How Workers Can File and What Penalties Employers Face

Employees in California can file PAGA claims for labor violations and recover civil penalties on behalf of the state. Penalties vary by infraction, and employers may reduce liability if violations are corrected within the allowed timeframe.
How Many Hours Can a 16 Year Old Work A Complete Guide to U.S. Child Labor Laws

How Many Hours Can a 16 Year Old Work? A Complete Guide to U.S. Child Labor Laws

Federal law sets no limit on work hours for 16-year-olds, but many states impose restrictions and nighttime limits. This guide breaks down FLSA rules, state variations, job types, and penalties for violating child labor laws.
New Hire Forms Checklist- Required Documents & Onboarding Essentials for Employers

New Hire Forms Checklist: Required Documents & Onboarding Essentials for Employers

Manage new hire onboarding smoothly using this checklist of required federal, state, and internal employment documents. Meet compliance needs and simplify hiring by collecting tax forms, offer letters, benefits paperwork, and signed policy acknowledgments.
Comp Day Explained - Eligibility, Benefits, and How to Calculate It Correctly

Comp Day Explained: Eligibility, Benefits, and How to Calculate It Correctly

Comp day lets eligible employees take time off instead of receiving overtime pay, offering flexibility in work schedules. This article explains how comp time is calculated, who qualifies, and the differences between comp time and overtime rules.
Work Permit California - Requirements, Age Limits, and Job Restrictions for Minors

Work Permit California: Requirements, Age Limits, and Job Restrictions for Minors

Minors in California need a work permit to get jobs, with specific restrictions based on age, role, and school status. This article outlines age requirements, job limitations, working hours, and exceptions to the state’s work permit rules for minors.
Split Shift Meaning Explained - How It Works, Benefits, Laws, and Real-World Examples

Split Shift Meaning Explained: How It Works, Benefits, Laws, and Real-World Examples

Split shifts divide a workday into separate periods with a long unpaid break, boosting flexibility and reducing staffing costs. This schedule helps businesses meet demand during peak hours while supporting employee well-being and complying with labor laws.
Is California an At-Will State - 4 Key Exceptions You Need to Know

Is California an At-Will State? 4 Key Exceptions You Need to Know

California permits at-will employment, but specific exceptions restrict when employers may legally terminate an employee without explanation. Contracts, public policy, fraud, and fairness-based exceptions can provide legal grounds for challenging terminations.
California Pay Data Reporting - 2025 Deadline, New MENA Category, and Updated Filing Requirements

California Pay Data Reporting: 2025 Deadline, New MENA Category, and Updated Filing Requirements

The 2025 deadline for California pay data reporting brings updated requirements, including MENA classification and new employer obligations. Covered employers must submit demographic wage data by job role, gender, race, and pay band or face financial penalties.
Family Leave California - Paid Family Leave Benefits, Eligibility, and Updates for 2025

Family Leave California: Paid Family Leave Benefits, Eligibility, and Updates for 2025

California’s Paid Family Leave program provides up to eight weeks of partial wage coverage for caregiving and bonding with children. Eligibility criteria and compensation limits have changed for 2025, administered through the State Disability Insurance (SDI) system.
California Child Labor Laws - Key Rules About Work Permits, Hours, and Restrictions for Minors

California Child Labor Laws: Key Rules About Work Permits, Hours, and Restrictions for Minors

California sets strict rules on work permits, hours, and job types allowed for minors under its child labor laws. State and federal rules also limit dangerous tasks and require school attendance for working minors.
California Minimum Wage Increase 2025 - New Rates for State, Fast Food, Healthcare, and Localities

California Minimum Wage Increase 2025: New Rates for State, Fast Food, Healthcare, and Localities

California’s 2025 minimum wage increase sets new statewide, fast food, healthcare, and local rates employers must comply with. Exempt and industry-specific employees face new salary thresholds, impacting wage standards across sectors and jurisdictions.
Background Check California - Laws, What Shows Up, and How to Clear Your Record

Background Check California: Laws, What Shows Up, and How to Clear Your Record

California background checks show criminal history, credit data, education records, and other public details under strict screening laws. Options such as expungement, pardons, and record sealing may remove damaging entries from your personal background file.
How Many Hours Can a Minor Work in California - A Complete Guide to Labor Laws and Restrictions

How Many Hours Can a Minor Work in California? A Complete Guide to Labor Laws and Restrictions

Minors working in California must follow strict hour limits based on age, school attendance, and job category. Employers who violate labor rules risk significant fines and possible criminal consequences.
California Overtime Law - Rules Exemptions Pay Rates and Worker Rights Explained

California Overtime Law: Rules, Exemptions, Pay Rates, and Worker Rights Explained

California overtime law requires non-exempt workers to receive extra pay for working beyond daily and weekly hour limits. Certain employees, including independent contractors and exempt workers, do not qualify for overtime based on legal standards.
How to Calculate Overtime in California - Daily, Weekly, and Double Time Pay Explained

How to Calculate Overtime in California: Daily, Weekly, and Double Time Pay Explained

California overtime laws require daily and weekly overtime pay for nonexempt workers, including salaried, commissioned, and piece-rate employees. This guide outlines calculating overtime, daily double time, regular pay rates, and employer responsibilities without addressing alternative workweek schedules.
What is Comp Time for PTO - A Complete Guide for Employers and Employees

What is Comp Time for PTO? A Complete Guide for Employers and Employees

Employers and employees can use comp time for PTO if it is applied legally with clear policies in place. Comp time rules differ between public and private sectors, affecting when it can substitute for overtime pay.
No Tax on Overtime in California 2025 Policy Updates, Exemption Timeline, and What Workers Should Expect.

No Tax on Overtime in California: 2025 Policy Updates, Exemption Timeline, and What Workers Should Expect

California may introduce a 2025 overtime tax exemption, but no confirmed start date or final state legislation exists yet. Workers and employers await Sacramento’s decision on removing state taxes from overtime earnings under the proposed changes.
Minimum Wage in California 2025 State and City Rates Explained

Minimum Wage in California 2025: State and City Rates Explained

The minimum wage in California will rise to $16.50 per hour in 2025, with some local rates set even higher. Employers must follow state, city, and industry-specific wage regulations carefully to remain compliant and avoid penalties.
California Fast Food Minimum Wage 2025 Statewide and Local Updates

California Fast Food Minimum Wage 2025: Statewide and Local Updates

The California fast food minimum wage will rise to $20 per hour in April 2025, affecting many workers statewide. Local minimum wage rates also vary across California cities, with some surpassing the new state baseline.
How old do you have to be to work Age limits explained

How old do you have to be to work? Age limits explained

Minimum age requirements for work depend on federal, state, and job-specific rules that focus on young workers' safety and rights. Teens can start working at 14, but restrictions remain in place until 18, depending on the specific type of job.
Workplace Culture and Hostile Work Environments in California Your Rights and Legal Options

Workplace Culture and Hostile Work Environments in California: Your Rights and Legal Options

Employees facing hostile workplaces in California have legal protections to address harassment, discrimination, and toxic work environments. Protect your rights, report misconduct, and pursue action through California's Civil Rights Department or with legal support.
What Is a Pay Stub and Why It Matters for Employees and Employers

What Is a Pay Stub and Why It Matters for Employees and Employers

Pay stubs detail wages, deductions, and taxes, helping employees track earnings and employers comply with state payroll regulations. They support loan applications, reduce payroll disputes, and are required or regulated in many states across the U.S.
What Are the Proper Steps to Fire Someone in California

What Are the Proper Steps to Fire Someone in California?

Terminating an employee in California requires following legal guidelines, maintaining professionalism, and ensuring proper documentation. This guide outlines lawful termination reasons, key procedural steps, and best practices to reduce legal and financial risks.
How Long Does a Misdemeanor Stay on Your Record in California

How Long Does a Misdemeanor Stay on Your Record in California?

A misdemeanor conviction in California stays on public record indefinitely but may be eligible for expungement under specific conditions. Background checks typically show misdemeanor convictions for seven years, but expungement can remove them from most employment screenings.
How do I prepare a script for firing someone

How Do I Prepare a Script for Firing Someone?

Learn the professional steps for firing an employee, from preparing a script to handling emotional reactions. Understand the proper procedures, reasons, and communication techniques to ensure a smooth and respectful termination.
What is involved in a PAGA lawsuit

What Is Involved in a PAGA Lawsuit?

PAGA lawsuits allow employees to file claims for labor code violations on behalf of themselves and others in California. Employers can face significant penalties, prompting many to settle to avoid costly judgments.
What are the rules for 10-minute breaks

What Are the Rules for 10-Minute Breaks?

California law mandates two paid 10-minute breaks and a 30-minute unpaid meal break for an eight-hour shift. Employers who fail to provide required breaks may face penalties, and employees can seek legal action for compensation.
Can I work six hours without a lunch break

Can I Work Six Hours Without a Lunch Break?

California law requires a 30-minute meal break for shifts over five hours, but employees can waive it if working exactly six hours. Employers must comply with strict labor laws, ensuring uninterrupted meal breaks and legal protections for workers.

Free Consultation