A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

New California bill targets employers who steal wages

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Here in California, people will provide an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. But many employers in the state do not pay their workers what they are owed, especially low-wage workers and immigrants.

To combat this exploitation, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Fair Day’s Pay Act into law earlier this month. The new law empowers the state Labor Commissioner’s Office to take tough steps against businesses that short their workers on their wages.

Up until now, California has had a big problem with wage theft. In Los Angeles alone, employers steal about $26.2 million from their employees — every week. This gives L.A. the dubious title of “wage theft capital” of the U.S., according to Ms. Magazine. Many victims are immigrants, people of color and/or women, said David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union.

Of course, this was already against the law before the FDPA, but actually obtaining justice was difficult most of the time. A 2013 study from UCLA concluded that aggrieved workers who sought to get their full pay only obtain back pay 17 percent of the time. Getting a judgment against the employer was not the problem; it was actually getting the business to pay up.

This is because, in response to wage theft judgments, many businesses would form a shell corporation or shift control to another entity. The FDPA blocks this shady behavior by making an employer or any subsequent business created to avoid penalties post a bond between $50,000 and $150,000, if they want to keep doing business in California.

In addition, the law allows the Labor Commissioner’s Office the ability to pursue back pay on workers’ behalf. Once the court has ordered a business to pay, failure to do so could lead the Office to shut the business down, or attach a lien to its property.

This law applies to contract workers as well as direct employees, which significantly widens its scope.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.