Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc. (2026) — Cal.App.5th —, G064718
Key Takeaway: The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s award of $516,965 in PAGA civil penalties and $733,440 in attorney fees in a case involving overtime, rest period, and wage statement violations. The plaintiff argued the court was required to reduce penalties on a per-pay-period basis and that a negative lodestar multiplier was improper. The court rejected both arguments, holding that the Labor Code does not mandate any particular method for reducing PAGA penalties and that a trial court has discretion to apply a negative multiplier to the lodestar when the circumstances warrant it. The decision gives trial courts wide latitude in calculating PAGA awards, a development that cuts both ways for workers.
What Happened in Taduran v. Glidewell
Abraham Taduran filed a PAGA action against his former employer, James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., a large dental ceramics manufacturer. The case alleged eight categories of Labor Code violations, and by the time the case reached the penalty phase, liability had been established on four of them: wage statement violations (failing to include piece-rate pay information), overtime violations (failing to include non-discretionary bonus pay in overtime calculations), rest period violations (rounding errors in how piece-rate rest period pay was calculated), and a related uptime pay issue.
The maximum statutory penalties totaled approximately $56 million. Taduran acknowledged the trial court had discretion to reduce that amount but argued the facts did not support a drastic reduction. Glidewell countered that the violations were technical and narrow, and proposed penalties that amounted to roughly a 99 percent reduction from the maximum.
The trial court awarded $516,965 in total civil penalties. It reduced the wage statement penalty to $100,165 because the noncompliant wage statements did not result in unpaid wages and were supplemented by production sheets that gave employees the relevant information. It reduced the rest period penalty to $188,820 because the violations involved rounding errors averaging $0.26 per pay period, and Glidewell had acted in good faith. For the uptime and bonus pay issues, the court awarded $155,980 and $72,000, respectively, applying similar reasoning about the technical nature of the violations and Glidewell’s willingness to correct them.
Taduran appealed on two grounds. First, he argued the trial court was required to reduce penalties on a per-pay-period basis rather than a per-employee basis. Second, he challenged the trial court’s application of a 0.70 lodestar multiplier to his attorney fee request, which had reduced his $1.047 million lodestar to $733,440.
The Fourth District affirmed on both points. On penalty methodology, the court held that Labor Code section 2699 does not prescribe any particular method for calculating a reduced penalty. The trial court had discretion to use a per-employee, per-pay-period, or any other reasonable method, as long as the resulting award was not unjust, arbitrary, or oppressive. On the lodestar multiplier, the court found the trial court had properly considered the relevant factors, including the limited complexity of the issues, the parties’ stipulation to most facts, and the modest result relative to the maximum penalties, and reasonably applied a negative multiplier.
How PAGA Penalty Reductions Work in California
PAGA authorizes civil penalties for Labor Code violations, with a default penalty of $100 per employee per pay period for initial violations and $200 for subsequent violations. For certain violations, specific penalty amounts are set by statute. In all cases, the court has discretion to award a lesser amount if the full statutory penalty would be unjust, arbitrary, or oppressive, considering the nature and severity of the violation, the employer’s good or bad faith, and other relevant factors.
The question Taduran raised — whether the court must reduce penalties on a per-pay-period basis is not just methodological. The choice of baseline matters enormously. A per-pay-period approach treats each paycheck as a separate violation; a per-employee approach treats each affected worker as the unit of measurement. For large employers with weekly or biweekly pay, the per-pay-period method can produce dramatically higher total penalties. Taduran argued that PAGA’s statutory language (“for each aggrieved employee per pay period”) required the per-pay-period approach.
The court unfortunately disagreed. It held that the statutory language defines the maximum penalty but does not constrain how a court exercises its discretion to reduce that maximum. A trial court may structure its reduction however it sees fit, so long as the result is reasonable. This gives significant flexibility — and significant power — to trial courts in PAGA cases.
What This Means for California Workers with PAGA Claims
Taduran is a mixed result. On one hand, the underlying violations were real: Glidewell admitted to overtime underpayments, wage statement deficiencies, and rest period calculation errors affecting its workforce. PAGA worked as intended by bringing those violations to light and producing penalties and corrective action. On the other hand, the decision gives trial courts broad discretion to reduce penalties significantly below the statutory maximum and to discount attorney fees when the case settles or resolves on stipulated facts.
For workers, the takeaway is that PAGA remains a viable enforcement tool, but the size of the recovery depends heavily on how the trial court exercises its discretion. Factors that can influence that exercise include the severity of the violation, whether the employer acted in good faith, whether the employer corrected the problem, and the total amount of unpaid wages at stake relative to the penalty amount. Cases involving technical or narrow violations may produce smaller per-employee penalties, while cases involving systemic, high-impact violations are more likely to sustain larger awards.
For attorneys evaluating PAGA cases, the decision is a reminder that the maximum statutory penalty is a ceiling, not a floor. The practical recovery in a given case depends on the facts, and the fee recovery depends on the result.
Talk to a PAGA and Wage-and-Hour Attorney
If you are a California employee who believes your employer has violated the Labor Code, including overtime, meal and rest period, wage statement, or payroll violations, our Wage and Hour attorneys at King & Siegel LLP can evaluate whether you have a PAGA or class action claim. Consultations are free and confidential.
Julian Burns King graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and founded King & Siegel in 2018. As head of the Firm’s discrimination and harassment practice areas, she champions the rights of working parents and victims of workplace discrimination and harassment. She has been recognized as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers annually since 2018 and has recovered tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her clients.