When a Demand Letter Reads Like a Form
Most employers assume a demand letter means the sender did their homework.
That assumption is getting more expensive to hold.
A growing share of the demand letters landing on employers’ desks share the same fingerprints. Boilerplate structure. Every conceivable Labor Code theory listed, regardless of whether the facts support it. A settlement number that tracks how many claims got stacked together, not what actually happened.
Some of that volume comes from AI drafting tools, used by claimants, by plaintiffs’ counsel, sometimes by both.
The issue for a small or mid-size employer isn’t that AI got used somewhere in the process. It’s that a letter dressed up to look thorough can create real settlement pressure even when most of what’s in it wouldn’t survive contact with the employer’s own records.
A demand letter itself isn’t filed with any court, so it isn’t subject to court rules. But the claims in it don’t disappear just because the employer declines to settle. If the sender actually files a complaint built on the same padded theories, that filing is a different animal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7 requires anyone signing a pleading or motion to certify, after reasonable inquiry, that the claims are warranted by existing law and supported by evidence or a good-faith basis to expect evidentiary support. A complaint that fails that certification can draw sanctions once it’s actually in front of a judge.
Whether a specific claim would survive that scrutiny depends on the facts. What did the filer actually know before filing. What would a reasonable inquiry into the employer’s own records have shown. Do the claims survive contact with those records, or fall apart on the first document request.
An employer who settles every thick-looking letter on reflex pays a premium for volume, not merit. Finding out which claims would actually hold up, both in the letter itself and in any complaint that might follow it, is worth doing before deciding how to respond.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed — and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.