For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Top 10 Most Read

FBI believed Feuer 'obstructed justice' in litigation investigation, documents show

May 16, 2024

Commission on Judicial Appointments confirms 3 justices to courts of appeal

May 15, 2024

Biden’s proposed tax increases will hurt, especially in California

May 15, 2024

DA transfers Grossman murder case after internal conflict allegation

May 14, 2024

Non-compete covenants leave sports betting executive idle

May 16, 2024

California prison officials lose bid for qualified immunity in COVID-19 case

May 14, 2024

Against the 'Europeanization' of California's antitrust law

May 15, 2024

Encouraging government lawyers to engage in the worst legal shenanigans

May 13, 2024

Wells Fargo accused of 'boys club' culture

May 16, 2024

Loss of more than an election

May 16, 2024

Letters

May 3, 2024

Depending on the facts, plaintiffs can argue for greater penalties under Section 226.3

The Gunther case expressly declined to follow an earlier decision in the Fourth District, Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, and this conflict has not been resolved.

Debra J. Tauger

Matern Law Group PC

Email: dtauger@maternlawgroup.com

Suffolk Univ Law School; Boston MA

On March 21, the Daily Journal published "Common Misconceptions about PAGA Penalties," by JJ Johnston.

I wanted to bring your attention to a mistake in the article. Regarding the availability of heightened civil penalties under Labor Code section 226.3, the Gunther case (Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. ((2021), 72 Cal.App.5th ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Related Content

Employment Law

Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

The heightened penalty provisions under the Private Attorneys General Act did not apply because it was undisputed that an airliner provided wage statements to its flight attendants.

Civil Procedure

Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors

Grant of summary adjudication on representative PAGA claim for civil penalties for violation of Labor Code Section 226(a) reversed where such claim does not require injury.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.