What does PAGA stand for?

PAGA stands for Private Attorney General Act. The central provision of PAGA is section 2699. Subdivision (a) of the statute permits aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties that previously could be collected only by LWDA. (Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 335. In addition, to address violations for which no such penalty had been established, subdivision (f) of the statute created “a default penalty and a private right of action” for aggrieved employees. (Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 375.)

Section 2699 exempts violations of certain Labor Code provisions from its scope, including provisions requiring employers to post specified notices. (§ 2699, subds. (f)(3), (m).) “In general the civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees are distributed ‘75 percent to the [LWDA] for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under [the Labor Code] … and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees.’ (§ 2699, subd. (i).)” Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 375, fn. 8.

Free legal advice. Call now: 800-484-4610

Nakase|Wade law firm represents companies, businesses, and employers – exclusively.

We invite your attention to our disclaimer.

Claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) are different from conventional civil suits. The Legislature’s sole purpose in enacting PAGA was to augment the limited enforcement capability of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) by empowering employees to enforce the Labor Code as representatives of the agency.

Accordingly, a PAGA claim is an enforcement action between the LWDA and the employer, with the PAGA plaintiff acting on behalf of the government. The state can deputize anyone it likes to pursue its claim, including a plaintiff who has suffered no actual injury. Moreover, civil penalties recovered on the state’s behalf are intended to remediate present violations and deter future ones, not to redress employees’ injuries. Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73.


Because a settlement of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Lab. Code § 2699, claims compromises a claim that could otherwise be brought by the state, however, the Act also requires that a court review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to the Act.

Moreover, a party seeking approval of a PAGA settlement must simultaneously submit the proposed settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to allow the LWDA to comment on the settlement if the LWDA so desires. The proposed settlement shall be submitted to the LWDA at the same time that it is submitted to the court.

But neither the California legislature, nor the California Supreme Court, nor the California Courts of Appeal, nor the LWDA has provided any definitive answer as to what the appropriate standard is for approval of a PAGA settlement. In commenting on a proposed PAGA settlement, the LWDA has offered only this guidance: It is thus important that when a PAGA claim is settled, the relief provided for under the PAGA be genuine and meaningful, consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute to benefit the public and, in the context of a class action, the court evaluate whether the settlement meets the standards of being fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate’ with reference to the public policies underlying the PAGA. Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 959


The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq., forecloses separate but similar actions by different employees against the same employer. Because an aggrieved employee’s action under PAGA functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself, a judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government. PAGA authorizes a representative action only for the purpose of seeking statutory penalties for Labor Code violations. For this reason, all PAGA claims are representative actions in the sense that they are brought on the state’s behalf. Provost v. YourMechanic, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 5th 982.

This Court adheres to the majority position allowing representative PAGA claims to proceed without class certification under Rule 23. The Court agrees that representative PAGA actions fundamentally differ from class actions insofar as PAGA’s “plain purpose is to protect the public interest through a unique private enforcement process, not to allow a collection of individual plaintiffs to sue the same defendant in one consolidated action for the sake of convenience and efficiency.” Moua, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11081, 2012 WL 370570, at *3.

In this sense, representative PAGA actions are “[g]enerally analogous to shareholder [*8] derivative suits,” as “aggrieved employees are deputized [under PAGA] to step into the shoes of the LWDA and pursue its interests in enforcement of the Labor Code.” Thomas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59377, 2011 WL 2173715, at *17; see also Lopez v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70051, 2012 WL 1655720, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. May 4 2012) (adopting Thomas’ analogy of PAGA to a minority shareholder’s derivative suit). Plaisted v. Dress Barn, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135599.