Compliance Stuff

  Even with the statutory clarifications that came along with last year’s PAGA reforms, California courts continue to wrestle with one of the thorniest aspects of the law: whether plaintiffs can maintain particularly troubling and costly “headless” PAGA claims against employers. The issue of whether a pre-reform plaintiff can maintain a representative PAGA action on behalf of employees other than themselves (also known as a “non-individual” PAGA claim) without alleging an individual PAGA claim has caused confusion for many. However, there is a potential resolution on the horizon. The California Supreme Court is set to decide the issue in the   Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.   case, which we anticipate to be released in early 2026. What do employers need to know about this much-anticipated decision? Did California Employers Celebrate Too Soon? When California’s long-anticipated  Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) reforms took effect in 2024 , employers celebrated the reshap...

On May 27, 2025, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that a former employee retains standing to bring California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims against an employer more than a year after separation , even though PAGA’s statute of limitations for civil penalties is one year. This decision is rooted in the statutory language prior to the July 2024 PAGA reforms and contrasts with the new, narrower standing requirements. Additionally, the decision directly contradicts other recent decisions reaching the opposite conclusion. Quick Hits The appellate court confirmed that, under the law as it existed prior to July 2024, a former employee could file PAGA claims even eighteen months after leaving employment, regardless of the one-year PAGA statute of limitations for civil penalties. The decision focused on the definition of “aggrieved employee” under the former version of Labor Code Section 2699, emphasizing that standing depended on whether the c...

  In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court published its decision in   Viking River Cruises v. Moriana   ( Viking River ), which was hailed as a “Big Win for California Employers.” The decision allowed for partial enforcement of arbitration agreements in actions brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The celebration of the “Big Win” was short-lived as the fight over the enforceability of arbitration agreements in PAGA actions continued immediately after   Viking River   was decided. Recently, PAGA plaintiffs began implementing a new anti-arbitration strategy wherein they attempted to bring a representative PAGA action that purportedly excluded the arbitrable portions of a PAGA action . Specifically, the PAGA plaintiffs assert that their representative PAGA action is solely based on alleged Labor Code violations against other,  non-party  employees. The PAGA plaintiff asserts that their PAGA action includes no arbitrable individual clai...

  The California Supreme Court has ruled that public employers are not subject to civil penalties under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) . In a pivotal decision, the court held that public entities, including public health authorities, are exempt from certain state labor rules on meal and rest breaks and, more broadly, from PAGA penalties . This ruling underscores the legal distinctions between public and private employers under California law. This article explains what the ruling means for both public and private employers and gives four practical tips to stay compliant. What Happened? In  Stone v. Alameda Health System , health care workers at Alameda Health System (AHS), a public hospital authority created by Alameda County, filed a class action alleging wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and seeking penalties under PAGA. Trial judge sided with the AHS.  At trial, the AHS argued it was a public entity not subject to liabil...

The California Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff in one Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have the right to intervene or object to a judgment in a similar action even if a settlement or other resolution in that similar case results in their PAGA action being entirely extinguished. The Aug. 1 decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. is a solid win for employers, limiting the exposure they face when targeted with two or more overlapping PAGA actions and providing clarity when making strategic litigation decisions during PAGA settlement negotiations. What are some key takeaways from this ruling, and what should employers do as a result? Quick Background California employers are no stranger to the state’s recently overhauled PAGA. The legislative scheme allows an individual alleging Labor Code violations to bring a lawsuit against an employer and seek penalties “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees. ”   Because of the massi...

These reforms aim to address long-standing employer concerns about frivolous lawsuits and inefficiencies. WHAT’S THE IMPACT? The deal is a significant win for employers— it aims to decrease litigation costs for businesses and simplify the PAGA legislation while still offering employees important protection. The effectiveness of the reforms, particularly the cure provisions, will depend heavily on the specific implementation details and timelines. Download PAGA Reform Agreement Governor Gavin Newsom (California), along with legislative leaders and key stakeholders, has announced significant changes to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This alert provides an overview of PAGA, outlines the proposed changes, and details what to expect and how to track these changes. What is PAGA? PAGA, enacted in 2004, allows employees to sue their employers for Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves and other employees. This legislation was introduced to enhance the enforcement of labor l...