Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The passage of SB 92 is expected to reshape certain operational procedures for employers in California, particularly those now permitted to resolve labor violations more discreetly and efficiently. The early evaluation conference aims to minimize court congestion by allowing both parties to potentially settle or dispute claims before proceeding with litigation. As such, the provisions offer employers a mechanism to address complaints proactively and may lead to reduced litigation costs and quicker resolutions overall. However, these amendments may also alter the dynamics of how labor laws are enforced by offering employers more latitude to resolve issues out-of-court.
Senate Bill No. 92 amends the Labor Code regarding the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The bill allows employers with fewer than 100 employees to address alleged violations by submitting a confidential proposal for curing violations within 33 days of receiving notice. This proposal must be accompanied by a sworn notification regarding the completion of the cure. Additionally, the bill enhances the scope of perjury laws as they pertain to these notifications. For employers with 100 or more employees, it introduces an early evaluation conference process where they can request a stay of court proceedings until the conference occurs, streamlining the dispute resolution process.
The sentiment surrounding SB 92 is mixed. Proponents argue that the bill fosters an environment conducive to business operations by providing mechanisms for employers to rectify issues without immediately resorting to litigation. Critics, however, may view these changes as diminishing the rights of employees, providing leeway for employers who may wish to evade accountability by opting to settle claims privately. This dichotomy reflects a broader debate in labor law regarding the balance between upholding employee protections and accommodating business interests in navigating compliance with state regulations.
Part of the contention surrounding SB 92 relates to the potential implications of allowing confidential proposals to cure violations and the introduction of early evaluation conferences. Opponents argue that these provisions may limit employees' access to justice and impede their ability to bring claims forward. Additionally, the expansion of perjury laws raises concerns about the possible consequences for employers and employees involved in the curing process. This legislative change underscores a fundamental tension within labor law, as it seeks to modify existing labor protections while simultaneously aiming to provide a more efficient regulatory framework.