Ana Wood brought a PAGA action against her employer Kaiser for alleged failure to correctly pay for three paid sick days as required under California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (the “Act”). The Act provided for compensatory relief and civil penalties, but restricted relief to equitable, injunctive, or restitutionary relief when brought by “any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public.” Kaiser argued that this phrase encompassed PAGA actions in which a plaintiff acts on behalf of the public and thus civil penalties (as plaintiffs seek under PAGA) are barred. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the Legislature intended to only restrict the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The trial court sustained Kaiser’s demurrer. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the phrase only referred to the UCL and not to PAGA. Disagreeing with several federal district courts and despite recognizing that aggrieved employees bring an action “on behalf of the state,” the Court of Appeal held that the Legislature intended PAGA plaintiffs to bring claims on behalf of the plaintiff and fellow aggrieved employees. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(a). This in contrast to the UCL which is expressly brought on behalf of the public. Thus, the Act’s reference to “on behalf of the public” referred only to the UCL and plaintiff was not precluded from bringing a PAGA action under the Act.