In a sharply worded notice, the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) recently demanded that a plaintiff-side law firm amend over 100 Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) notices it had filed. The LWDA warned that failure to amend would risk a finding that they are insufficient to satisfy PAGA’s administrative notice requirement.

Before an allegedly “aggrieved” employee can commence a PAGA lawsuit, the employee must give written notice to the LWDA and the employer of the specific labor code provisions alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violations. This pre-litigation notice obligation has been described as an “administrative exhaustion” requirement.

The LWDA’s letter explains that a PAGA notice must include sufficient factual detail to apprise both the LWDA and the employer of the nature of the violations alleged. The purpose of this requirement is twofold. First, the LWDA needs enough specifics to intelligently assess the seriousness of the alleged violations and determine whether to devote government resources to an investigation. Second, the employer receiving the notice needs enough information to understand the nature of the violations, so it may decide whether to “fold or fight.” Importantly, none of this is new—this has always been the standard.

According to the LWDA, the PAGA notices this law firm filed, which the LWDA characterized as “boilerplate,” generally failed to demonstrate any applicability or relevance to a particular claimant, or their unique circumstances in terms of their employment with their current or former employee in any specific case. The LWDA commented that, based on a sampling of the notices, they appeared to be a “template form” prepared without regard to any individual claimant’s particular experiences or employment with their respective employer. 

The LWDA then directed the law firm to amend over 100 notices it had filed. The LWDA commented that absent amendment, the notices appeared insufficient to satisfy PAGA’s administrative notice requirements. The LWDA directed that the amended notices set forth specific violations each particular claimant personally suffered and describe the particular facts and theories supporting the specific violations in each case.

While the LWDA pointed to the PAGA reforms enacted last year as evidence of a legislative intent to increase its oversight of PAGA matters, one has to wonder whether a trial court ruling about which we wrote last year, Whose Case Is It Anyway? Trial Court Orders State of California to Pay Court Costs in PAGA Action, might have also inspired the LWDA. In that case, an Alameda Superior Court judge awarded costs to a victorious employer in a PAGA matter and against the LWDA. That matter is now on appeal.

With the LWDA seemingly becoming more involved in reviewing PAGA filings, it remains to be seen how this may impact PAGA litigation in California.