California Legislature Declines to Create New Private Right of Action to Recover Unpaid Wages

Quick Hits

• On February 2, 2026, the California Legislature declined to pass legislation (SB 310) that would have allowed employees to directly sue for unpaid wages under section 210, maintaining the current enforcement avenues through the labor commissioner or PAGA.
• SB 310 aimed to address delays and limited recoveries in existing processes by proposing a new civil action route for employees, but it failed to pass, leaving the current penalty recovery methods unchanged.
• Employers may want to continue to prioritize timely wage payments and maintain strong payroll controls, as the legislative focus on wage payment issues suggests potential future proposals.

SB 310 targeted the timing of wage payments by proposing a new route for employees to recover penalties under California Labor Code section 210 through an independent civil action—separate from the labor commissioner’s administrative process and PAGA. Section 210 imposes penalties when employers fail to pay wages on time: $100 per employee for an initial violation, and $200 plus 25 percent of the unlawfully withheld amount for each subsequent or willful/intentional violation. SB 310 would have added a third option by expressly authorizing employees to sue directly in court to recover these penalties themselves, especially as an additional claim in a class action.

The bill’s sponsors argued that DLSE wage-claim backlogs and the 35 percent employee share of PAGA penalty recoveries make existing avenues slow and less remunerative for workers; by contrast, a standalone civil action would purportedly allow workers to recover 100 percent of section 210 statutory penalties without waiting for the administrative process. Later amendments narrowed the proposal so the new civil action would apply only to subsequent or willful/intentional violations—not initial violations—while preserving the “no double recovery” rule: employees could pursue either (i) statutory penalties via the labor commissioner or an independent civil action; or (ii) civil penalties under PAGA, but not both for the same violation.

For employers, the most significant implications would have been:

• a new, direct litigation pathway for section 210 penalties, potentially increasing court filings and class litigation leverage in wage-and-hour disputes that include alleged late-pay violations under Labor Code section 204; and
• the possibility that plaintiffs would stack claims in a single lawsuit (for example, section 210 penalties via a private action for one alleged violation and PAGA civil penalties for others), even though double recovery for the same violation would remain barred. Opponents argued this would raise settlement pressure and undercut recent PAGA reforms.

What This Means for California Employers

The compliance and litigation landscape for late payment penalties remains unchanged. Employers are still subject to section 210’s penalty framework—but employees cannot file a standalone civil action exclusively to recover those section 210 statutory penalties. Instead, they must continue to choose between the labor commissioner’s process for statutory penalties or a PAGA action for civil penalties, and they cannot recover both for the same violation.

That outcome avoids the additional litigation channel, and settlement leverage that many business groups warned SB 310 could create—especially in cases where section 204 “late pay” allegations are pleaded as derivative add-ons to broader wage-and-hour class actions. As a result, the status quo persists: PAGA remains the main vehicle for civil penalties, with its attendant requirements and allocation rules, while the DLSE remains the forum for statutory penalty recovery.

Even though the bill failed to pass, it is still a policy signal. The legislature, sponsors, and committees focused extensively on late wage payments, DLSE backlogs, and access to remedies—issues that will likely return in future proposals. The Senate floor and committee analyses both emphasized the goal of improving worker recovery of unpaid wages.

Practical Takeaways

Employers may want to continue prioritizing on-time wage payments in strict alignment with California’s pay frequency statutes to minimize exposure to section 210 penalties, PAGA claims, and related remedies.

Employers may also want to continue maintaining robust payroll controls, auditing, and documentation to mitigate derivative “late pay” allegations that often appear in wage-and-hour pleadings. Opponents highlighted this risk pathway during SB 310’s consideration.

Bottom Line

The failure of SB 310 to pass is a positive development for California employers this year because it preserves the current framework and avoids a new, direct private right of action for section 210 penalties that could have expanded litigation exposure and settlement pressure. This period of stability is a good time for employers to reinforce wage-timing compliance and readiness for any renewed legislative efforts on late wage payment enforcement.

Ogletree Deakins’ California Class Action and PAGA Practice Group and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the California, Class Action, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts