The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law (HPL), along with co-counsel Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow (FJWW) recently received a favorable decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a case called Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenence Co. (September 30, 2021, Case No. G057836). HPL and FJWW represent Isabel Garibay, a worker who intervened in […]
Read more...Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
PAGA and Manageability: Some Lessons Learned from Wesson v. Staples
On September 9, 2021, in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2021, No. B302988) 2021 WL 4099059, Division 4 of the Second District Court of Appeal addressed an important question of first impression: whether trial courts have the authority to ensure that claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act […]
Read more...PAGA, Individual Claims, Public Entities, and Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Claims
On September 8, 2019, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued an important decision in the case of Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles (Case Nos. B279719, B282416). That decision casts light on the following questions: (1) Whether PAGA claims can be brought on behalf of an 
individual, as opposed to a group of aggrieved employees; (2) Whether PAGA claims can be brought against public entities; and (3) Whether attorneys’ fees are recoverable under Labor Code section 1102.5.
Continue reading “PAGA, Individual Claims, Public Entities, and Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Claims”
Read more...Unpaid Wages and PAGA: A Third Approach in Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse
On March 28, 2019, a third California Court of Appeal weighed in on the issue of whether California employees who have signed arbitration agreements can bring claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for unpaid wages.
To set the stage, in Esparza v. KS Indus., L.P. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that a PAGA claim can be split, and that PAGA claims for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 can be sent to individual arbitration. In Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705, the Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that employees can bring those PAGA claims on a representative basis in court.
The Second District Court of Appeal has now weighed in on this issue in the case of Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse (March 29, 2019) Case No. B289192. In that case, the court agreed with Lawson for the most part, but added this interesting twist: Of the unpaid wages recovered, 75 percent must go to the State, and 25 percent to the workers. In reaching this holding, the Zakaryan court relied on the fact that Labor Code section 558 was enacted before PAGA. Therefore, PAGA’s later-enacted rule regarding the distribution of civil penalties recovered under that statute must control. Continue reading “Unpaid Wages and PAGA: A Third Approach in Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse”
Read more...Can I Be Fired for My Political Beliefs or Activities in California?
In this time of political turbulence, many people wonder if they can be fired for their political beliefs or activities. In California, the answer to that question is no, thanks to the provisions of California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. Section 1101, which has been on the books since 1937, provides as follows: No […]
Read more...Employee Cannot Pursue PAGA Claim Against Employer after Settling and Dismissing Individual Labor Code Causes of Action
On December 29, 2017, the California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District held that an employee who settled and dismissed his individual wage and hour claims against his former employer no longer had standing to maintain a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cause of action against that same employer. Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 2d. Dist. Case No. B278642 (filed December 29, 2017). Continue reading “Employee Cannot Pursue PAGA Claim Against Employer after Settling and Dismissing Individual Labor Code Causes of Action”
PAGA and Arbitration: The Growing Conflict between State and Federal Court
In earlier posts, we have explored the question of whether arbitration agreements that are broad enough to include claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code section 2698), or PAGA, should be enforced. As of March 2017 there is a growing split between state and federal courts on this issue. As a result, which court a case winds up in may very well determine how the court rules on this critical question. Continue reading “PAGA and Arbitration: The Growing Conflict between State and Federal Court”
Read more...No Arbitration of PAGA Claims
PAGA continues to be an important tool for workers in California seeking to enforce their rights under the Labor Code. Employers continue to try to force PAGA claims into arbitration, where they think that they have a decisive advantage. Yet courts continue to block these efforts. As a result, PAGA claims remain in court where they belong.
The latest case to hold that PAGA claims cannot be arbitrated is Hernandez v. Ross Stores, Inc. (2d DCA Pub. Order 1/3/17) E064026. There, the plaintiff, a warehouse worker, sought to bring a PAGA-only action against the discount store giant for failure to pay wages, failure to properly itemize hours, and failure to pay overtime. Ross attempted to compel Hernandez to arbitrate her individual claims, arguing that its arbitration agreement stated that it applied to “any disputes arising out of or relating to the employment relationship” between Ross and an employee. Ross contended, based upon this language, that before Hernandez could bring a PAGA action, she had to arbitrate the “dispute” over whether she was an aggrieved employee.
Not surprisingly, this too-clever-by-half argument failed. Both the trial court and Division Two of the Second District Court of Appeal held that Hernandez could not be compelled to arbitrate her PAGA claims. The trial court grounded its analysis in the seminal case of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, which held that PAGA actions-whether seeking penalties for one employee or for a group of them-are fundamentally law enforcement actions designed to protect the public. In PAGA cases, there are therefore no individual claims to arbitrate. Continue reading “No Arbitration of PAGA Claims”
Read more...Penalties for Late Payment of Wages under California Labor Code 204
How soon after payroll period are employers required to pay employees?
Employers in California have to pay their employees by a certain date. That date depends on whether the payments are made every two weeks (bi-weekly), twice a month (bi-monthly), or otherwise. If an employer does not make its payments on time, it can face significant liability under the Private Attorneys General Act, as described below. Continue reading “Penalties for Late Payment of Wages under California Labor Code 204”
Read more...California Truck Drivers and Meal Breaks
A company’s failure to provide the meal breaks that are required by law can give rise to PAGA penalties. In 2012, the California Supreme Court clarified some of the basic rules that apply to meal breaks in the seminal case of Brinker Restautant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. A recent case further […]
Read more...