Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Archives - Page 3 of 3

PAGA’s Exhaustion Requirements: Guidance from the 9th Circuit

Hunter PyleFebruary 15, 2016

The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code[1] §§ 2698-2699.5) (“PAGA”) was enacted in 2004 in order to allow employees to bring representative actions to recover civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code. Once an afterthought, in recent years PAGA claims have become increasingly popular.[2] As the number of PAGA claims has grown, the PAGA landscape has become ever more hotly contested.

This post is part of a series of posts exploring recent development in PAGA jurisprudence. It focuses on PAGA’s exhaustion requirements. Continue reading “PAGA’s Exhaustion Requirements: Guidance from the 9th Circuit” →

How Much Notice is Required Under PAGA? Ninth Circuit Provides Guidance in Unpublished Decision

Dan MahoneyOctober 29, 2015

This month in an unpublished opinion in Green v. Bank of America, No. 13-56023 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2015), the Ninth Circuit clarified the standard for exhaustion of administrative remedies under the California Private Attorneys’ General Act (PAGA). The plaintiffs are now petitioning the court to have this decision published, so that the PAGA notice standard becomes the law of the Circuit. Continue reading “How Much Notice is Required Under PAGA? Ninth Circuit Provides Guidance in Unpublished Decision” →

The Ninth Circuit and PAGA: A Pair of Important Decisions in Yocupicio v. PAE and Sakkab v. Luxottica

Hunter PyleOctober 2, 2015

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified two critical issues that pertain to claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.. Each of these decisions is helpful to workers seeking to recover civil penalties under PAGA.

First, in Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court held that PAGA penalties may not be counted when calculating damages for the purpose of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Under CAFA, when certain other requirements are met, a class action that is filed in state court can be removed to federal court if the defendants can show that the damages at issue are worth more than $5 million. (In very general terms, most plaintiffs want to be in state court because state courts are perceived as being more favorable to class actions than federal court.) Continue reading “The Ninth Circuit and PAGA: A Pair of Important Decisions in Yocupicio v. PAE and Sakkab v. Luxottica” →

PAGA Claims Remain In State Court Where They Belong

Hunter PyleJune 6, 2014June 27, 2023

Workers in California have a powerful tool for combating wage and hour violations: the Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. PAGA allows workers to bring civil cases seeking penalties that otherwise would be available only to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

PAGA cases are almost always filed in state court. Employers seeking to defeat PAGA actions have increasingly been attempting to remove them to federal court. This is because federal judges are generally viewed as more pro-employer on the issues that arise in PAGA cases than state court judges. In other words, employers believe that they are more likely to win in PAGA actions if they are in federal court.

However, in another win for plaintiffs who seek to bring PAGA actions, the Ninth Circuit recently held that PAGA claims are not class actions. Thus, they are not subject to the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA. Continue reading “PAGA Claims Remain In State Court Where They Belong” →

PAGA Continues to Provide an Avenue to Justice for Workers

Hunter PyleMay 1, 2014June 27, 2023

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has done its level best to derail class actions. In decision after decision the Court has curtailed the ability of regular people to join together to challenge the actions of corporations and other entities. The more cynical among us might see this as a pattern whereby the Court is going out of its way to grant new rights to the powerful and wealthy interests in our society. (See, for example, the recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the Court greatly expanded the ability of wealthy individuals to contribute to campaign funds-and thereby disproportionately influence elections.)

The Court’s attack on class actions has dramatically affected workers seeking to enforce their rights under federal and state labor laws. Many workers who have sought to represent groups of employees in court have been (1) prevented from representing other workers (by way of a class action waiver that they were forced to sign in order to get the job), and (2) forced into arbitration where they are denied the right to present their case to a jury of their peers.

Workers in California are fortunate in that they have another resource to rely upon in the event that they are unable to bring a class action. California’s Private Attorneys General Act (also known as “PAGA”) was enacted in 2004 because the California Labor & Workplace Development Agency (LWDA) did not have enough attorneys or staff to enforce the California Labor Code. The goal at that time was to allow workers-particularly low wage agricultural workers-to file representative actions on behalf of themselves and their co-workers. (California Rural Legal Assistance, an incredible organization that represents farm workers, led the fight enact PAGA.) Continue reading “PAGA Continues to Provide an Avenue to Justice for Workers” →

The California Supreme Court and the fate of Class Actions

Hunter PyleApril 4, 2014June 27, 2023

The California Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 3, 2014, in a case that is likely to significantly shape the landscape of class actions in both state and federal court: Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, No. S204032. The Supreme Court granted review in Iskanian to resolve two important questions: Continue reading “The California Supreme Court and the fate of Class Actions” →

Hunter Pyle to present at three events in Fall 2013

Hunter PyleSeptember 12, 2013June 27, 2023

Hunter Pyle will be presenting at three events in Fall 2013: On September 20, 2013, Hunter will participate in a case law update as part of the 4th Annual Alameda County Bar Association Employment Law Symposium. Hunter’s remarks will focus on significant developments in 2013 in the areas of wage and hour law, class actions, […]

Employers May Not Force Employees to Arbitrate PAGA Claims for Labor Code Violations

Hunter PyleJune 10, 2013June 27, 2023

Brown v. Superior Court, Case No. H037271 (6th App. Dist. June 5, 2013) represents another important victory for workers in California. In Brown, the court held that employers may not force employees to arbitrate their claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698, et seq., also known as “PAGA.” This is because PAGA claims are representative actions intended to advance a public purpose. A private agreement attempting to waive the right to take such representative actions is unenforceable because it prevents employees from exercising their unwaivable statutory rights.

In Brown, the plaintiffs had signed an arbitration agreement that waived their right to pursue any type of class or representative action. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs brought claims for unpaid wages and overtime, among others. They also brought claims under PAGA. (Many sections of the California Labor Code provide for civil penalties, often in the amount of $50 or $100 per violation. PAGA allows employees to bring representative actions to recover those penalties in representative actions brought on behalf of other employees.)

The employer then attempted to force the plaintiffs to arbitrate all of their claims, including their PAGA claims. If successful, this would have resulted in the plaintiffs losing their right to pursue claims on behalf of other employees. The trial court agreed with the employer. However, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District blocked the employer from doing so. Continue reading “Employers May Not Force Employees to Arbitrate PAGA Claims for Labor Code Violations” →