As we reported here, a split in authority has developed in the California Court of Appeal regarding what to do when an employer moves to compel arbitration of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that is “headless”—that is, a claim seeking penalties on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved employees except the named plaintiff. (This is the latest trick the plaintiff’s bar has come up
As we have reported time and again, California courts have applied extra scrutiny to employee arbitration agreements in recent years, and have not hesitated to deny arbitration where there is a reasonable basis for doing so. This trend demands that employers be vigilant and update arbitration agreements when developments in the law implicate them. In the recent case of Ford v. The Silver F,
On February 26, 2025, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) issued the latest published decision addressing the practice of filing so-called “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. In the wake of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596
In yet another attempt to avoid arbitration agreements, plaintiffs’ lawyers in the wake of the blockbuster court decisions in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana and Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. began filing so-called “headless” claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. Thus, these
The California Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) recently refreshed its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims processing in light of the recent legislative reforms.
As we reported here, California enacted A.B. 2288 and S.B. 92 this past summer, bringing long-overdue reforms to PAGA. The new legislation applies to PAGA notices and any resulting actions filed on or after June
The future of PAGA continues to look a bit brighter for employers as new favorable case law emerges. We previously reported on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. wherein the California Supreme Court ruled that PAGA plaintiffs have no standing to intervene in parallel PAGA lawsuits. We are now happy to report that another “win” for employers has come out of Second Appellate District of the Los
The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to intervene or object to a settlement in a parallel action involving overlapping PAGA claims.
The structure of PAGA tends to invite the scenario facing the parties and
On June 27, 2024, the California Legislature passed AB 2288 and SB 92, compromise legislation that reformed the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and averted a ballot measure that threatened to repeal the law entirely this November. We previously reported on the compromise here when the deal was announced, and published a primer on the substantive changes to the law here.
Arguably the
On June 27, 2024, by near-unanimous vote, the California Legislature passed two bills enacting much-needed reform to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). We previously reported on the legislative compromise last week, when the deal was first announced.
The most profound changes are contained in AB 2288, which amended Labor Code § 2699—the beating heart of PAGA. AB 2288 makes several significant changes to the
Inspired by a push to repeal the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) by ballot measure (which we previously covered here and here), and at the urging of Governor Gavin Newsom, stakeholders have reached an agreement in principle to reform PAGA and avoid a high-stakes showdown come November. If the Legislature passes the compromise into law by June 27, the measure will be pulled from