California Employee Civil Action Law and PAGA Repeal Initiative (2024)

California Employee Civil Action Law Initiative
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Civil and criminal trials
Status Not on the ballot
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

The California Employee Civil Action Law Initiative (#21-0027) was not on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 5, 2024.

A "yes" vote would have supported this ballot initiative to repeal the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and replace it with a new law that would have: doubled statutory and civil penalties for willful violators; required that 100% of monetary penalties be awarded to harmed employees; provided resources to employers to ensure labor compliance; and required the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to be a party to all labor complaints.

A "no" vote would have opposed this ballot initiative to repeal the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows employees to sue employers and collect a share of monetary penalties for state labor law violations.

Overview

What would the initiative have done?

See also: Measure design

The initiative would have repealed the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and replaced it with a new law—"Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act." The law would have double statutory and civil penalties for willful violators; require that 100% of monetary penalties, rather than the current 25%, be awarded to harmed employees; and provide resources to employers to ensure labor compliance. The law would have required that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) be a party to all labor complaints filed with the Labor Commissioner. It would have not awarded any attorney's fees, which are currently awarded under PAGA. It would have also required that the state legislature fully funds the DLSE to meet the division's requirements by law.

As of 2024, under PAGA, employees have a private right of action to collect civil penalties for violations against the state's labor code without state intervention on behalf of the employees. Before pursuing a lawsuit under PAGA, an employee must first notify the state of the alleged violation. If the state does not investigate the violation, the employee may proceed with the lawsuit.

When was PAGA enacted?

See also: Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was passed during the 2003 legislative session in California. It was introduced as Senate Bill 796 (SB 796). It passed in the state senate by a vote of 21-14 and in the state house by a vote of 42-34 with four not voting. It was signed by Gov. Gray Davis (D) on October 10, 2003.

According to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, approximately 5,000 PAGA notices are filed annually.

Who supported and opposed the initiative?

See also: Support and Opposition

Californians for Fair Pay and Accountability led the campaign in support of the initiative. The PAC raised $30.8 million in contributions. The top donors included California New Car Dealers Association Issues PAC, Western Growers Service Corp, and California Business PAC. California Chamber of Commerce, which also supports the initiative, said, "The California Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act is an opportunity to reform labor law enforcement to prevent frivolous litigation while ensuring that workers receive the wages they are owed in a timely manner, plus any penalties. The Act would also benefit both workers and employers by allowing employers to consult the Labor Commissioner when there is an ambiguity in the law, to help make sure they are in compliance."

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.

Repeal of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Changes to employee labor complaints

The ballot measure would have repealed California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and replaced it with the proposed law referred to as the "Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act."

As of 2024, under PAGA, which was adopted in 2004, employees have a private right of action to collect civil penalties for violations against the state's labor code without state intervention on behalf of the employees. Before pursuing a lawsuit under PAGA, an employee must first notify the state of the alleged violation. If the state does not investigate the violation, the employee may proceed with the lawsuit. According to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, approximately 5,000 PAGA notices are filed annually. Any penalties won under PAGA must be split between the employees (25%) and the state of California (75%). PAGA also allows individual employees to seek civil penalties on behalf of other aggrieved employees.

The law would have doubled statutory and civil penalties for willful violators; required that 100% of monetary penalties, rather than the current 25%, be awarded to harmed employees; and provided resources to employers to ensure labor compliance. The law would have required that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) be a party to all labor complaints filed with the Labor Commissioner. It would have not awarded any attorney's fees, which are currently awarded under PAGA.

It would have also prohibited the DLSE from contracting with any non-governmental entity or attorney in pursuit of legal action against an employer on behalf of DLSE. The division would have also been prohibited from disclosing information to the public about ongoing investigations until they have concluded and the decision to issue a citation is made.

The proposed law would have also established an ombudsperson within the Department of Industrial Relations as a point of contact for persons with complaints against the DLSE.

It would have also required that the state legislature fully funds the DLSE to meet the division's requirements by law.

Creation of the Consultation and Policy Publication Unit: Subunit of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

The law would have created the Consultation and Policy Publication Unit with the aim of "providing information, advice, and assistance to employers, employees, and other members of the public about laws enforced by the division." The unit would have also advised employees who believe their employers are violating labor policies on where to file their complaints. Employers, who are not under investigation, would have also been able to apply for a consultation with the unit and correct any violations found without penalty. The corrections would have been required to be made within 60 days. Employers would have also been able to ask via letter for help in complying, and the unit would have been required to respond within three months.

Labor code changes: Administration of labor code changes

The labor code would have been amended to add language that requires the office that deals with employee complaints to work with a field enforcement unit to "maximize efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of enforcement of labor standards and recovery of funds and penalties owed to employees." The law would have also required the field enforcement unit to analyze whether the plan is increasing compliance with labor laws and proposing changes when applicable to increase effectiveness.

As of 2024, the labor commissioner could issue subpoenas. The law would have authorized the division to provide notice to an employer under investigation with the subpoena about "reasonable assumptions" that would be made if the documentation requested by the subpoena is not provided within 30 days. Prior to the 30 days, the employer would have been able to object in good faith to the full scope of the subpoena and provide counter-evidence. The employer would have also been able to object to the 30-day timeframe and provide the information as soon as possible.

The proposed law would have also repealed the provision that removes the requirement for the labor division to stop reporting annually to the Department of Finance after January 1, 2031.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title would have been as follows:

“

Eliminates Employees’ Ability to File Lawsuits for Monetary Penalties for State Labor-law Violations. Initiative Statute.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:

“

Repeals 2004 law allowing employees to file lawsuits on behalf of themselves and other employees against employers to recover monetary penalties for certain state labor-law violations. Labor Commissioner retains authority to enforce labor laws and impose penalties. Eliminates Labor Commissioner’s authority to contract with private organizations or attorneys to assist with enforcement. Requires Legislature to provide funding of unspecified amount for Labor Commissioner enforcement. Requires Labor Commissioner to provide pre-enforcement advice; allows employers to correct identified labor-law violations without penalties. Authorizes increased penalties for willful violations.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Likely increase in state costs to enforce labor laws that could exceed $100 million per year. Reduction in state penalty revenue used for labor law enforcement in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Support

Californians for Fair Pay and Accountability led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Organizations

• California Chamber of Commerce
• California New Car Dealers Association
• California Restaurant Association
• Western Growers Association

Arguments

• California Chamber of Commerce: "The California Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act is an opportunity to reform labor law enforcement to prevent frivolous litigation while ensuring that workers receive the wages they are owed in a timely manner, plus any penalties. The Act would also benefit both workers and employers by allowing employers to consult the Labor Commissioner when there is an ambiguity in the law, to help make sure they are in compliance."
• Jot Condie, president and chief executive officer of the California Restaurant Association: "State data proves that it can take years in the courts before an employee can get a ruling on their claim. Unfortunately, it’s not the workers that get the big payout, the trial lawyers get millions of dollars dragging proceedings out for years."
• Dave Puglia, president and chief executive officer of the Western Growers Association: "This measure also protects small businesses that are complying with labor laws and makes it easier to do so. Family farmers cannot afford to be subjected to the shakedown lawsuits that PAGA has unleashed."

Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Arguments

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through March 31, 2024.

Californians for Fair Pay and Employer Accountability, a political action committee, was registered to support the ballot initiative. The PAC raised $30.8 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$30,761,331.41	$14,918.96	$30,776,250.37	$10,727,549.25	$10,742,468.21
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$30,761,331.41	$14,918.96	$30,776,250.37	$10,727,549.25	$10,742,468.21

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Employee Civil Action Law and PAGA Repeal Initiative
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Californians for Fair Pay and Employer Accountability	$30,761,331.41	$14,918.96	$30,776,250.37	$10,727,549.25	$10,742,468.21
Total	$30,761,331.41	$14,918.96	$30,776,250.37	$10,727,549.25	$10,742,468.21

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California New Car Dealers Association Issues PAC	$6,595,500.00	$0.00	$6,595,500.00
Western Growers Service Corp	$6,120,000.00	$0.00	$6,120,000.00
California Restaurant Association Issues PAC	$5,654,272.42	$2,382.96	$5,656,655.38
California Chamber of Commerce	$5,000,000.00	$0.00	$5,000,000.00
California Business PAC	$895,000.00	$12,536.00	$907,536.00

Background

Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was passed during the 2003 legislative session in California. It was introduced as Senate Bill 796 (SB 796). It passed in the state senate by a vote of 21-14 and in the state house by a vote of 42-34 with four not voting. It was signed by Gov. Gray Davis (D) on October 10, 2003.

Under PAGA, employees have a private right of action to collect civil penalties for violations against the state's labor code without state intervention on behalf of the employees. Before pursuing a lawsuit under PAGA, an employee must first notify the state of the alleged violation. If the state does not investigate the violation, the employee may proceed with the lawsuit. According to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, approximately 5,000 PAGA notices are filed annually.

Litigation regarding PAGA

Arias v. Superior Court (2009)

In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled in Arias v. Superior Court that PAGA lawsuits did not have to follow the same procedural rules governing class action lawsuits. The court cited the state labor code that says that an aggrieved employee can file a PAGA lawsuit “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.” The court also held that "a private plaintiff suing under this act is essentially bringing a law enforcement action designed to protect the public."

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014)

In 2014, the state Supreme Court ruled in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC that employees could not waive their right to bring PAGA claims in court. The court said, "We conclude that where, as here, an employment agreement compels the waiver of representative claims under the PAGA, it is contrary to public policy and unenforceable as a matter of state law."

Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) and Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022)

In 2021, the California Second District Court of Appeal ruled that trial courts have the authority to strike or limit PAGA claims before trial to ensure they are manageable during litigation. The majority opinion said, "We do not believe a court is powerless to address the challenges presented by large and complex PAGA actions and is bound to hold dozens, hundreds, or thousands of minitrials involving diverse questions, depending on the breadth of the plaintiff’s claims. As explained above, courts have inherent authority to manage litigation with the aim of protecting the parties’ rights and the courts’ ability to function."

In 2022, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with Wesson in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. ruling that trials courts may limit evidence for the sake of manageability but cannot strike a PAGA claim before trial for the sake of manageability. On June 22, 2022, the California Supreme Court granted review in Estrada to resolve the split in the circuit court.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022)

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. Angie Moriana brought a representative action—an action in which a plaintiff brings a lawsuit on behalf of others—against Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking) for violations of the California labor code. Viking moved to dismiss the action, arguing that an arbitration agreement Moriana had signed as a condition of her employment required that all employment disputes be arbitrated. The trial court denied Viking's motion citing the California Supreme Court's precedent in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014), finding arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring representative actions under California law unenforceable. After unsuccessful appeals to the California appellate courts, Viking appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the theory that the California Supreme Court's holding in Iskanian was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis.

In an 8-1 ruling, the court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Iskanian because it precludes division of California Private Attorneys General Act lawsuits into individual and non-individual claims through an arbitration agreement. The ruling partially struck down PAGA by prohibiting workers to join together to sue their employer because it violated an employer’s right to arbitration under federal law.

California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)

As of 2024, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) was a cabinet-level state agency with seven departments, boards, and panels that oversee California employers and workers to "ensure safe and fair workplaces, deliver critical worker benefits, and promote good jobs for all."

All PAGA claims are filed with the LWDA. State law sets specific time frames that govern the review of the claim and further investigation by the LWDA before the filer of the claim can pursue legal action.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the ballot:

• Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 30, 2022. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Initiative #21-0027

Brian Maas filed the ballot initiative on October 4, 2021. The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on December 8, 2021, allowing a signature drive to begin. Signatures were due on June 6, 2022. Proponents reported collecting 25% of the required signatures on February 3, 2022.

On May 12, the campaign announced that they would target the 2024 ballot.

On June 9, 2022, the secretary of state announced that the campaign had submitted over 638,000 signatures.

On July 22, 2022, the secretary of state reported that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. The final random signature count concluded that 700,008 signatures of the 962,224 submitted were valid.

On June 18, 2024, the sponsors of the initiative and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced a legislative compromise that would require the withdrawal of the initiative from the ballot once it is passed. Jennifer Barrera, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce, said, "This package provides meaningful reforms that ensure workers continue to have a strong vehicle to get labor claims resolved, while also limiting the frivolous litigation that has cost employers billions without benefiting workers."

On June 27, the secretary of state reported that it had been withdrawn from the ballot.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to vote in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of January 2025, six states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.

”

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Civil and criminal trials on the ballot
• Labor and unions on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Petition #21-0027