Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

PAGA 2.0 – Early Evaluation Conferences May Help Defendants Cut to the Chase

By Jonathan Slowik & Morgan Peterson on July 12, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On June 27, 2024, the California Legislature passed AB 2288 and SB 92, compromise legislation that reformed the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and averted a ballot measure that threatened to repeal the law entirely this November.  We previously reported on the compromise here when the deal was announced, and published a primer on the substantive changes to the law here.

Arguably the most significant aspect of SB 92 is a provision allowing the employer to file a request for an early evaluation conference and a request to stay the court proceedings upon being served with the complaint.  This option is available to employers with at least 100 employees in total during the relevant period and applicable to cases filed (or based on notices filed) on or after June 19, 2024. The purpose of the conference is to evaluate the following:

  1. Whether any of the alleged violations occurred and if so, whether the defendant has cured the alleged violations.
  2. The strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff’s claims and the defendant’s defenses.
  3. Whether the plaintiff’s claims, including any claim for penalties or injunctive relief, can be settled in whole or in part.
  4. Whether the parties should share other information that may facilitate early evaluation and resolution of the dispute.

Absent good cause to deny the request, the court must stay the action and issue an order that does the following:

  1. Schedules and directs the parties to appear at an early evaluation conference no later than 70 days out, with a judge, a commissioner, or “such other person knowledge about and experienced with issues arising under” the Labor Code.  Evidence Code § 1152 applies to the early evaluation conference.
  2. For a defendant who has indicated it intends to cure any alleged violations, directs the defendant to submit confidentially to the neutral evaluator and the plaintiff, within 21 days, its proposed plan to cure the violations.
  3. For a defendant to disputes any alleged violations, directs the defendant to submit to the neutral evaluator and the plaintiff a confidential statement including the basis and evidence for disputing the alleged violations.
  4. Directs the plaintiff to submit to the neutral evaluator and defendant within 21 days after service of the defendant’s cure plan a confidential statement setting forth: (i) the factual basis for the alleged violations, (ii) the amount of penalties claimed for each violation and basis for calculation, (iii) the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred to date, (iv) any demand for settlement of case in its entirety, and (v) the basis for accepting or not accepting the defendant’s proposed cure plan.

If the neutral evaluator accepts the defendant’s proposed cure plan, the defendant must present evidence within 10 calendar days (or a longer period if agreed to by the parties and the neutral evaluator) demonstrating the violations have been cured.  If all parties agree that the violations have been cured, the parties then submit a statement explaining the cure. The court will treat the statement as a proposed settlement and evaluate it under the usual standard for PAGA settlement approval.  If the parties disagree about whether the violations have been cured, the defendant may file a motion to request that the court approve the cure.

While the early evaluation process is optional, defendants may benefit from forcing the plaintiff to articulate at an early stage what they believe the case is really about.  In this way, the early evaluation process (coupled with the new standing requirement) could provide some protection against plaintiffs filing kitchen sink lawsuits and then using discovery to find out what violations they might actually be able to prove—a tactic that employers have become all too familiar with in recent years.

Photo of Jonathan Slowik Jonathan Slowik

Jonathan Slowik represents employers in all aspects of litigation, with a particular emphasis in wage and hour class, collective, and representative actions, including those under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). He has defended dozens of class, collective, and representative actions in state…

Jonathan Slowik represents employers in all aspects of litigation, with a particular emphasis in wage and hour class, collective, and representative actions, including those under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). He has defended dozens of class, collective, and representative actions in state and federal trial and appellate courts throughout California and beyond. In addition to his core wage and hour work, Jonathan has defended employers in single-plaintiff discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases, and in labor arbitrations. Jonathan also regularly advises clients on a wide range of compliance issues and on employment issues arising in corporate transactions.

Jonathan has deep experience representing clients in the retail and hospitality industries, but has assisted all types of clients, including those in the health care, telecommunications, finance, media, entertainment, professional services, manufacturing, sports, nonprofit, and information technology industries.

Jonathan is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s California Employment Law Blog and has written extensively about PAGA on various platforms. He has been published or quoted in Law360, the Daily Journal, the California Lawyer, the Northern California Record, and the UCLA Law Review.

Jonathan received his B.A. from the University of Southern California in 2007, magna cum laude, and J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2012, where he was a managing editor of the UCLA Law Review.

Read more about Jonathan SlowikEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Morgan Peterson Morgan Peterson

Morgan Peterson is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She is a member of the Wage and Hour and the Class and Collective Action practice groups.

Morgan assists clients with litigations…

Morgan Peterson is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She is a member of the Wage and Hour and the Class and Collective Action practice groups.

Morgan assists clients with litigations and arbitrations relating to wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour, and whistleblower matters in both the single plaintiff and class and collective action contexts. She also counsels employers on a diverse range of workplace issues and their policy and handbook development. Morgan also has experience assisting employers with sensitive workplace investigations. Morgan has gained experience across a wide range of industries including financial services and FinTech, health care, media and entertainment companies, staffing companies, and sports.

Morgan also maintains an active pro bono practice representing individuals in immigration and civil rights matters and providing employment counseling to non-profit organizations. Morgan has received Proskauer’s Golden Gavel Award twice in recognition of her pro bono work. Morgan remains active in her community and serves on the Chadwick School Alumni Board.

Morgan earned her J.D. from U.C. Irvine School of Law, where she was an Executive Editor of the UC Irvine Law Review and spent four semesters working in UCI’s Civil Rights Litigation Clinic. Morgan also served as a judicial extern for the Honorable John D. Early in the Central District of California. Morgan received her B.A., cum laude, from Tufts University.

Read more about Morgan PetersonEmailMorgan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Arbitration and ADR, Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    California Employment Law Update
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo