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 Bereavement Leave 2025 - AB 1949 Rules, Paid vs Unpaid Time, and Employer Compliance

CA Bereavement Leave 2025: AB 1949 Rules, Paid vs Unpaid Time, and Employer Compliance

California AB 1949 requires employers to provide up to five days of bereavement leave for eligible employees in 2025. It covers eligibility, paid versus unpaid time, documentation rules, employer obligations, and compliance risks for California businesses.
Pre-Employment Drug Test California - Laws, Requirements, and Employer Guidelines

Pre-Employment Drug Test California: Laws, Requirements, and Employer Guidelines

California employers can require pre-employment drug testing under strict regulations, with exceptions for safety-sensitive roles and federal compliance. Workers have rights regarding confidentiality, fairness, and contesting results, and businesses must update policies for California’s new marijuana laws.
Does California Drug Test for Weed - AB 2188 Employment Rules

Does California Drug Test for Weed? AB 2188 Employment Rules

California AB 2188 limits employer drug testing for non-psychoactive marijuana use and permits impairment and active THC testing. Beginning January 2024, most employees gain workplace protections, though safety-sensitive and federally regulated positions remain exempt.
Make Up Time in California - Rules, Overtime Exceptions, and Employee Rights

Make Up Time in California: Rules, Overtime Exceptions, and Employee Rights

Make-up time in California lets non-exempt employees offset missed hours without losing pay under defined legal rules. This guide covers overtime exceptions, employee rights, and employer duties for make-up time requests under state labor laws.
California Tipped Minimum Wage - 2025 Rates, Laws, and Employee Rights

California Tipped Minimum Wage: 2025 Rates, Laws, and Employee Rights

California servers must receive the full state minimum wage of $16.50 per hour in 2025, plus any earned tips. Employers cannot take tips, pay below the minimum wage, or violate California Labor Code protections for tipped workers.
Regular Rate of Pay in California - Overtime, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Employer Compliance

Regular Rate of Pay in California: Overtime, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Employer Compliance

California employers must calculate overtime, meal, and rest break premiums using the regular rate of pay, including bonuses and incentives. Miscalculating regular rates can result in lawsuits, penalties, and compliance risks, making accurate payroll practices vital for businesses across the state.
Overtime Tax Rate California - Overtime Pay and Taxes in 2025

Overtime Tax Rate California: Overtime Pay and Taxes in 2025

Overtime pay in California is taxed like regular income, with brackets based on total annual earnings. For 2025–2028, a temporary deduction lets workers write off up to $12,500 ($25,000 joint) of qualifying overtime.
California Labor Code 5814 - Penalties for Delayed or Unreasonable Workers’ Compensation Payments

California Labor Code 5814: Penalties for Delayed or Unreasonable Workers’ Compensation Payments

California Labor Code 5814 outlines penalties for delayed workers’ compensation, protecting injured employees from financial hardship caused by late payments. Workers may claim up to 25 percent penalties for unreasonable delays, ensuring timely disability benefits, medical coverage, and settlement reimbursements.
California Labor Code 202 -Final Paycheck Rules When Employees Quit

California Labor Code 202: Final Paycheck Rules When Employees Quit

California Labor Code 202 requires employers to pay final wages on time when employees resign, with timing based on notice given. Workers may also claim unused vacation pay, request retirement fund deposits, or seek penalties for delayed payments.
California Labor Code 1174 - Employer Timekeeping and Recordkeeping Requirements

California Labor Code 1174: Employer Timekeeping and Recordkeeping Requirements

California Labor Code 1174 outlines employer timekeeping and recordkeeping duties, allowing electronic or paper systems when records are indelible. Keep records in California, preserve them at least three years, and provide accessible copies to workers and authorities.
Labor Code 1194 (California) - Overtime and Minimum Wage Rights, and Remedies

Labor Code 1194 California: Overtime and Minimum Wage Rights, and Remedies

California Labor Code 1194 protects workers seeking unpaid minimum wage and overtime, providing legal remedies, interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Employees can file lawsuits or arbitration claims to recover wages, enforce rights, and safeguard against unlawful employer practices in California.
California Labor Code Section 2810.3 - Employer Liability for Labor Contractor Violations

California Labor Code Section 2810.3: Employer Liability for Labor Contractor Violations

California Labor Code Section 2810.3 makes client employers liable for labor contractor wage violations and missing workers’ compensation coverage. Reduce risk through careful vetting, clear contracts, payroll monitoring, and tight compliance with statutory duties and narrow exemptions.
California Labor Code 201 - Final Paycheck Rules, Employee Rights, and Employer Obligations

California Labor Code 201: Final Paycheck Rules, Employee Rights, and Employer Obligations

California Labor Code 201 requires immediate final paychecks at discharge, covering unpaid wages, unused vacation, and earned bonuses. Employees may seek penalties and file claims if payment is delayed or withheld.
Labor Code 510 - California Overtime Pay, Exceptions, and Calculations

Labor Code 510: California Overtime Pay, Exceptions, and Calculations

California Labor Code 510 outlines overtime pay rules, exemptions, and calculation methods, protecting employees from unfair wage practices and misclassification. This guide explains daily and weekly overtime, special worker protections, and the legal steps available if overtime pay is denied.
Meal Premium California - Laws, Penalties, and Employer Compliance

Meal Premium California: Laws, Penalties, and Employer Compliance

California meal premium rules require employers to provide compliant breaks or face fines, lawsuits, and costly penalties. Use clear policies, precise tracking, and regular reviews to maintain compliance and avoid financial or reputational harm.
Employee Record Retention by State - Guide for Employers

Employee Record Retention by State: Guide for Employers

State-by-state employee record retention guide covering payroll, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, child labor, discrimination, and access. Get clear timelines and required details for Alabama to Wyoming so employers meet audits, claims, and compliance duties.
How Much Notice Does an Employer Have to Give for a Schedule Change in California

How Much Notice Does an Employer Have to Give for a Schedule Change in California?

California employers must follow state and local rules on schedule changes, including notice periods, overtime, and reporting time pay. This guide explains meal breaks, overtime, predictable scheduling, local city ordinances, and penalties for violating California labor laws.
Employment Mediation - Process, Benefits, Preparation, and What to Expect

Employment Mediation: Process, Benefits, Preparation, and What to Expect

Employment mediation offers a faster, cost-effective alternative to litigation for resolving workplace disputes. Get the process, benefits, preparation steps, what to expect, possible outcomes, and mediator roles.
What Is Fair Chance Hiring - Meaning, Benefits, and How It Works for Employers

What Is Fair Chance Hiring? Meaning, Benefits, and How It Works for Employers

Fair chance hiring gives candidates with criminal records fair consideration, helping employers access loyal, diverse, and skilled talent. It strengthens compliance, lowers turnover, and helps build high performance teams without compromising workplace safety.
California Labor Code Section 204 - Employee Rights When Employers Pay Late

California Labor Code Section 204: Employee Rights When Employers Pay Late

Late wage payments in California can trigger penalties under Labor Code Section 204, protecting employees from repeated payroll delays. Workers have legal options including waiting time penalties, wage claims, and attorney assistance to secure timely pay.
California Equal Pay Act - Differences from Federal Law, Employer Duties, and Employee Protections

California Equal Pay Act: Differences from Federal Law, Employer Duties, and Employee Protections

California’s Equal Pay Act expands protections beyond federal law, covering pay disparities by sex, race, and ethnicity. Employers must justify wage differences with valid factors; employees gain retaliation safeguards, filing options, and potential damages.
I-9 Compliance - Employer Rules, Penalties, and Best Practices

I-9 Compliance: Employer Rules, Penalties, and Best Practices

I-9 compliance helps employers verify work authorization, meet federal rules, and avoid costly fines, penalties, and legal issues. Use proper documentation, audits, E-Verify, and training to maintain compliance and reduce employment verification risks.
California Labor Code - Divisions, Laws, and Employee Rights Overview

California Labor Code: Divisions, Laws, and Employee Rights Overview

California Labor Code overview covering divisions, employee rights, workplace safety, workers’ compensation, and enforcement across key industries. Trace major milestones, landmark cases, and updates that shape employer obligations and protections for California workers today.
Are Non Solicitation Agreements Enforceable in California - Exceptions and Legal Insights

Are Non-Solicitation Agreements Enforceable in California? Exceptions and Legal Insights

Non-solicitation agreements in California are mostly unenforceable, except when tied to trade secrets, business sales, or partnership dissolutions. This article outlines key exceptions, legal challenges, and how courts determine when limited restrictions may stand under state law.
California Labor Code Section 226 - Wage Statement Requirements & Penalties

California Labor Code Section 226: Wage Statement Requirements & Penalties

California Labor Code Section 226 sets strict paystub requirements and exposes employers to lawsuits, PAGA penalties, and fees. Review wage statements for all nine items; third party payroll services do not shield companies from compliance mistakes.
Do You Have to Sign a Write Up at Work - Employee Rights and Employer Policies Explained

Do You Have to Sign a Write-Up at Work? Employee Rights and Employer Policies Explained

Employees often ask if they must sign a workplace write-up, and the answer depends on labor laws and company policies. This guide explains employee rights, employer practices, and options for responding when faced with disciplinary write-ups.
ABC Test California - AB 5 Exceptions, Borello Factors, and Worker Status

ABC Test California: AB 5 Exceptions, Borello Factors, and Worker Status

AB 5 reshaped California worker classification with the ABC test, Borello factors, and multiple exemptions impacting industries and licensed professionals. This guide covers independent contractor rules, key exceptions, and legal consequences for misclassification under California employment law.
How Long to Keep Employee Files - Record Retention Laws, Timelines, and Best Practices

How Long to Keep Employee Files: Record Retention Laws, Timelines, and Best Practices

Keep employee records compliant with federal and state retention laws to protect your business from fines, lawsuits, and compliance issues. Establish clear policies, digitize securely, and retain files for proper timelines to ensure efficiency, privacy, and legal protection.
Separation of Employment - State Notice Requirements, Termination Letters, and Compliance Guide

Separation of Employment: State Notice Requirements, Termination Letters, and Compliance Guide

State separation laws vary, requiring employers to issue termination notices on time to reduce penalties and compliance risk. This guide covers state notice requirements, termination letters, unemployment benefit notifications, and practical steps for multi-state compliance.
Labor Code Section 2810.5 - CA Hiring and Wage Notice Guide

Labor Code Section 2810.5: CA Hiring and Wage Notice Guide

California Labor Code Section 2810.5 outlines hiring and wage notice requirements employers must follow to avoid penalties and lawsuits. Employers must provide detailed written notices, comply with minimum wage laws, and use official forms to remain compliant.

Free Consultation