“Headless” PAGA Cases: Can a worker disclaim individual PAGA claims in order to avoid arbitration?

A fascinating issue has arisen under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): can a worker bring a “headless” PAGA case, in which she disclaims her individual PAGA claims in order to proceed in court on PAGA claims for all other workers? This issue will likely bedevil trial courts until the California Supreme Court resolves it, which, hopefully, will be soon (see below).

The headless PAGA claim question has arisen because many employers are forcing employees to sign arbitration agreements that waive their right to bring class actions. As a result, if those employees want to bring representative claims on behalf of a larger group of workers, they are left with PAGA claims for civil penalties that otherwise could only be recovered by California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

Why headless PAGA claims?

Abitration of wage and hour claims may sound like a good idea: employers tout it as speedy and efficient. In reality, it is anything but. It often takes up to half a year to even select an arbitrator. Then, if that arbitrator is busy, they may not have time to hear the case for years.

Furthermore, appeals from arbitration awards are extremely limited. If a trial court judge gets a legal issue wrong, you can appeal it. If an arbitrator makes the same mistake, you are, generally speaking, stuck with it.

Finally, arbitrators’ decisions are normally binding once the case returns to the trial court. For example, in Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (October 10, 2024, 2d DCA, Division 3), the trial court compelled the plaintiff to arbitrate his individual, non-PAGA claims. The plaintiff then lost on those claims in arbitration. The employer then moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the PAGA claims, arguing that they should be dismissed. The trial court granted the motion, and the court of appeal agreed: The trial court had properly found that the arbitration award and resulting judgment precluded the plaintiff from relitigating the Labor Code violations to prove standing to maintain his PAGA cause of action.

For these reasons, many workers who have valid wage and hour claims would prefer to avoid arbitration and to proceed directly in court.

In 2023, in the case of Adolph v. Uber, the California Supreme Court considered a question raised by the US Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana: does a worker who is required to arbitrate their individual PAGA claims retain standing to bring PAGA claims on behalf of the other workers? The California Supreme Court held that the answer to this question is yes. To have standing under PAGA, a worker need only meet two requirements: (1) they must have been employed by the alleged violator, and (2) they must have experienced one or more of the alleged violations. Therefore, “where plaintiff has brought a PAGA action comprising individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.” 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114.

Adolph thus opened the door to the possibility of workers bringing PAGA cases in which they only sought PAGA penalties on behalf of other workers. Numerous cases followed that explored the viability of such “headless” PAGA cases.

Recent decisions of the California Courts of Appeal

The first of these cases was Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (April 18, 2024, 2d DCA, Div. 6). In that case, the trial court, on its own motion, found that the plaintiff had not brought individual PAGA claims. The trial court therefore concluded that the plaintiff had no standing to bring PAGA claims on behalf of other workers. Division Six of the Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that employees can meet the standing requirements of PAGA (described above) without bringing individual PAGA claims.

If Balderas is right on this issue, then workers who wish to bring PAGA claims but have signed arbitration agreements can avoid arbitration by disclaiming any individual PAGA claims. Those workers can thus keep their non-individual cases in court, where they will be free to pursue PAGA claims on behalf of other workers.

Approximately eight months later, however, Division One of the Second District Court of Appeal disagreed with the holding in Balderas. In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (December 30, 2024, 2d DCA, Div. 1), the court of appeal held that every PAGA action includes both an individual PAGA claim and a representative PAGA claim because Labor Code section 2699(a) defines a PAGA claim as “a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees.” The court reasoned that that “and” is important, and so a plaintiff cannot disclaim their individual PAGA claims.

If Leeper is right, then workers cannot disclaim their individual PAGA claims. If those workers have signed valid arbitration agreements, then they must pursue their individual PAGA claims in arbitration before bringing the non-individual PAGA claims in court.

Another court of appeal weighed in shortly after Leeper. In Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services Ltd. (February 26, 2025, 4th DCA, Div. 1), the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered this same issue, and sided with Balderas, holding that workers can disclaim their individual PAGA claims and thereby avoid having to arbitrate their individual PAGA claims.

The Rodriguez court reached this holding by rejecting Leeper, on the grounds that the language from Labor Code section 2699(a) quoted above means only that a PAGA complaint should contain an individual PAGA claim. The court further suggested that the proper way for an employer to challenge a headless PAGA case was through a motion attacking the pleadings, not through a motion to compel arbitration.

The California Supreme Court grants review

On April 16, 2025, the California Supreme Court decided that enough was enough. On its own motion, the Court granted review of Leeper. The Court limited the issues to be briefed and argued to the following:

1. Does every PAGA action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? 
2. Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?

Interestingly, the Court denied all requests for depublication of Leeper pending review. Instead, the Court noted that the court of appeal’s decision could be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion to choose between sides of any such conflict.

What are trial courts to do?

Not surprisingly, give the disagreement between the courts of appeal, trial courts have reached different conclusions regarding headless PAGA cases.

For example, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, five judges have considered this issue. Four agreed with Leeper. One disagreed. In Santa Barbara Superior Court and Fresno Superior Court, the judges have followed Balderas. And in Alameda County Superior Court, one judge followed Leeper, compelled the individual claims to arbitration, but did not enter a stay regarding the PAGA claims of the rest of the workers.

Therefore, it is somewhat of a roll of the dice as to whether to pursue headless PAGA claims. Trial courts will almost certainly continue to disagree as to whether to allow such claims until the California Supreme Court resolves the issue.

The lawyers at Hunter Pyle Law, PC, are experts at bringing claims under PAGA. If you have a question about your rights at work, please feel free to make use of our free and confidential intake process. We can be reached at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

Independent Contractors vs. Employees: Key Differences Under California Law and Why It Matters

Under California law, a person paid to provide labor or services is an employee, unless they meet all three of the following conditions:

(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

(C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

             A classic example used to illustrate the “ABC test”¹ above is the example of a plumber. If a plumber that works on their own is hired by a law firm to fix a broken pipe, that plumber is not an employee of the law firm. The law firm will not tell the plumber how they must fix the pipe, as long as the plumber does it well. The plumber is not performing work that is usually done by a law firm, as a law firm does not perform pluming work. The plumber is performing work that is part of their own existing plumbing business. The law firm may have heard of the plumber through the plumber’s ads or business cards. Thus, the plumber in this example meets the test above and is an independent contractor.

             However, if that same plumber is hired by a plumbing company, then that plumber may be an employee of the plumbing company. The plumbing company may tell the plumber during which times they must be available, what types of materials to use, and even what uniform to wear while they work. The plumber is also performing work that is part of the plumbing company’s usual course of business. The plumber is performing work for the business and not for themselves. In this example, the plumber is an employee because the three requirements in the ABC test were not met.

Why does it matter?

Misclassification deprives workers of their fundamental rights.

Independent contractors are not subject to the same wage and hour laws as employees. For example, independent contractors are not guaranteed a minimum wage, overtime, or meal and rest periods. Similarly, independent contractors do not have the right to a workplace that is free from harassment and discrimination. Nor do independent contractors have the right to a safe workplace, or to form a union.

Independent contractors also generally do not qualify for workers’ compensation if they get hurt on the job, or unemployment insurance if they get laid off.

Misclassification harms women and people of color.

The industries where misclassification is most common—construction, home health care, shipping and delivery, driver services (like Uber and Lyft), and janitorial services—are also the industries in which women and people of color are disproportionately represented. According to one study, seven out of eight occupations in which misclassification is common are held mainly by women and people of color.²

Misclassification shifts the burden to state and local governments.

When companies convert employees into independent contractors, they drastically reduce the amount of money that they have to pay by way of employment-based taxes. For example, employers are required to pay taxes that help to fund Social Security and Medicare. They also have to help pay for unemployment insurance and workers compensation. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these taxes and benefits “can add as much as 30% or more to a worker’s total costs.”³ Companies that utilize independent contractors do not pay into the social safety net in this same manner. As a result, they effectively shift the cost of these important benefit programs to the taxpayers.

Misclassification can have a ripple effect.

Misclassification makes it harder for companies that want to do the right thing and pay their employees a living wage. When a company misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor, it gains an unfair advantage over its competitors. Even though it is illegal to do so, those companies are able to slash their overhead. This forces the companies competing with them to also reduce their costs. As a result, misclassification effectively pressures other businesses to follow suit.

Footnotes:

1. The “ABC test” was established by Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and codified into law by AB5 in 2019. ↩︎
2. See Alexander, Misclassification and Antidiscrimination: An Empirical Analysis (2017) Minn. Law Rev. 907, 910. ↩︎
3. See Economic Policy Institute, Rhinehart, et al., Misclassification, the ABC test, and employee status: The California experience and its relevance to current policy debates (June 16, 2021). ↩︎

Get in touch:

If you have questions about whether you are an employee or independent contractor, feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law for a free, confidential consultation by calling (510)-444-4400 or emailing inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

The New PAGA: Stacking, Injunctive Relief, and Heightened Penalties for Bad Actors

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows workers to join together to collect civil penalties when their employers violate the Labor Code. With the rise of arbitration agreements that prevent workers from bringing class actions, PAGA plays a critical role in protecting workers by allowing them to join together in representative actions seeking such penalties.

PAGA was amended in three ways in 2024 that help workers do just that. First, it is now clear that PAGA allows “stacking,” or multiple PAGA penalties arising from the same conduct, in some circumstances. Second, PAGA now allows workers to get injunctive relief from the courts barring their employers from continuing to violate the law. Finally, PAGA provides for heightened civil penalties against bad actors.

1. Stacking

Prior to the 2024 amendments, it was unclear whether workers could stack PAGA penalties, meaning get more than one PAGA penalty for a single act by the employer. (For example, it was not clear whether workers were entitled to one or three penalties if an employer failed to credit a worker for all hours worked, resulting in unpaid overtime, a failure to provide a meal period, and an inaccurate wage statement.)

Under the new PAGA, Labor Code section 2699(h)(3)(i) now explicitly prohibits stacking of PAGA penalties for violations of sections 201-203, 204, and 226. However, by expressly stating that stacking is not available in these limited circumstances, the statute now implicitly allows stacking in other circumstances.

This is thanks to the fancy Latin phrase “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” which provides that the express reference to one thing excludes other things. Applying that concept here, the Legislature expressly provided that stacking was not allowed in certain limited circumstances. There, it is reasonable to conclude that it is generally available in other circumstances.

2. Injunctive Relief

PAGA now allows workers to receive injunctive relief, which means a court order prohibiting employers from doing things that violate the Labor Code. See Labor Code section 2699(e)(1). This is important because injunctive relief is sometimes the only way to get employers to change their conduct. It means that PAGA can now be used more effectively to deter future violations of the law.

3. Heightened Penalties for Bad Actors

Under the new PAGA, civil penalties are increased to $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period if the employer has been found or determined within the last 5 years by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) or a court to be in violation of the Labor Code provision at issue. See Labor Code section 2699(f)(2)(B). In other words, repeat bad actors will be subject to higher penalties if they continue to violate the law.

The penalties are also increased to $200 if the court determines that the employer’s conduct giving rise to the violation was “malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive.” Ibid. This new standard, which is similar to the standard for punitive damages in other contexts, will also help workers hold bad actors accountable.

Finally, PAGA penalties for employers that have failed to provide an itemized wage payroll statement are not limited by the amendments and are governed by Labor Code section 226.3: $250 per employee per violation in an initial citation and $1,000 per employee for each violation in a subsequent citation.

If you have questions about your rights under the California Labor Code or your ability to bring a PAGA claim, consider contacting an experienced wage and hour attorney today.

Public Employees, Overtime, and the Fair Labor Standards Act

Public employees in California are not covered by many of the state’s wage and hour laws. However, generally speaking, they are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA. In January 2025, the United States Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof that employers must meet in order to show that employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA.

In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (2025) No. 23-217, the Supreme Court was faced with the following question: do employers need to meet a heightened burden of proof to show that an employee is exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions, or is such a claim subject to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

The Supreme Court began its analysis with the history of the FLSA, which was enacted in 1938, and pointed out that employers who claim that an employee is exempt from the act have the burden of showing that such an exemption applies. It then considered whether the district court’s holding, that in order to meet that burden, the employer had to show “clear and convincing evidence” that an employee was exempt.

The Supreme Court then noted that the FLSA did not specify the standard of proof for such exemptions. In such cases, courts normally apply the less stringent preponderance of the evidence standard. Furthermore, the Court concluded that FLSA cases of this sort did not involve constitutional rights requiring a heightened standard of proof. Finally, other workplace protections, such as discrimination claims, are subject to the preponderance of the evidence standard.

For all of these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied to employers’ claims that employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. This will make it more difficult for employees, including public employees, to bring such claims going forward.

If you are a public employee with questions about your rights at work, including questions involving overtime, feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law PC to make use of our free and confidential intake process. We can be reached at (510) 444-4400 or at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

Can plaintiffs bring non-individual PAGA claims to avoid arbitration?

A recent California court of appeal decision has addressed the question of whether a plaintiff can file a PAGA claim that is representative only, disavowing any individual PAGA claims, and thereby avoid arbitration altogether. In that case, Leeper v. Shift (December 30, 2024) B339670, the court held that every PAGA action includes an individual PAGA claim regardless of how it is pled by the plaintiff. As a result, that individual PAGA claim may be compelled to arbitration if there is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

In Leeper, the plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she was bring a single count for “non-individual” PAGA penalties. She further alleged that because she was doing so, Shipt could not compel her claims to arbitration.

Shipt then filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied.

The Second District Court of Appeal (DCA) reversed the trial court. The DCA looked first to the statutory language of PAGA, finding that it clearly referred to PAGA actions as being brought “on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees.” (emphasis added.) From this, the DCA concluded that PAGA actions contain both individual and representative components.

The DCA then distinguished several cases, including Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533. Some plaintiffs, including Ms. Leeper, had relied upon that case for the idea that it was possible to file non-individual PAGA claims. The Leeper court rejected that analysis, reasoning that Balderas was about standing, not the question of whether plaintiffs could bring non-individual PAGA claims.

The DCA recognized the adverse results that its holding could have: allowing PAGA claims to be forced into arbitration, resulting in the possible stay of the representative PAGA claims, as well as possible issue preclusion. This means that employers may be able to use Leeper to put representative PAGA claims on ice for significant amounts of time.

The practical impact of Leeper

The practical impact of Leeper is heightened by the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664. In that case, the Court made it easier for defendants to reverse auction PAGA claims. As Justice Goodwin Liu noted in his dissent, this issue “calls for legislative attention, lest the statute’s goal of strengthening Labor Code enforcement be thwarted by settlement incentives that drive a race to the bottom.”

The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law PC have handled many PAGA actions against employers large and small. If you have questions about your rights at work, please feel free to contact us and to make use of our free and confidential intake process.

Timing is Everything for California Whistleblowers

If you are an employee who has reported something in the workplace that you thought broke some kind of law, this article is for you.

(more…)

The Role of the “Same Decision” Defense in California Whistleblower Cases

Whistleblower cases in California differ from discrimination cases in several important ways. Among other things, Section 1102.6 of the Whistleblower Protection Act (found in the California Labor Code) provides that where an employee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that discriminatory activity was a “contributing factor” with respect to a discriminatory act, the burden then shifts to the employer. To meet that burden, the employer must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the action would have occurred for other legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity. The statute reads as follows:

In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

This framework, and particularly the requirement that an employer present “clear and convincing evidence,” can be useful for employees in situation in which a number of factors contributed to the decision to discipline or terminate. Furthermore, in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court concluded that Section 1102.6 provides the “applicable substantive standards and burdens of proof for both parties in a section 1102.5 retaliation case” and is a “complete set of instructions” for adjudicating whistleblower retaliation claims.

The language in Section 1102.6 does not appear in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), where many of the state’s antidiscrimination laws are found. For this reason, the FEHA treats cases in which there are multiple reasons for an adverse employment action differently. In Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, the California Supreme Court held that in FEHA claims, where an employer proves that it that it would have made the same decision even absent any unlawful discrimination, the employee is still entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief, as well as attorneys fees. However, to trigger this situation, an employee must show that discrimination was a “substantial factor” in the underlying decision.

In other words, the first step of the analysis under FEHA discrimination claims is more challenging for the employee to meet because the employee must show what discrimination was a “substantial factor” as opposed to just “a contributing factor”. However, once the employee meets that burden, in the second step of the FEHA analysis he or she can prevail even if there were other reasons for the discriminatory act.

A recent decision of the First District of the California Court of Appeal clarifies the ramifications of the difference in language between the FEHA and the Whistleblower Protection Act. In Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs (May 22, 2024), A163571, the plaintiff tried to import the Harris framework into a whistleblower case. The court rejected that effort, holding that the “same decision” defense is a complete defense in cases brought under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

If you have questions about your rights at work-either a whistleblower or under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law and to make use of our free and confidential intake process. We can be reached at (510) 444-4400 or at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

Attorneys’ Fees in Individual Wage and Hour Cases

California Labor Code section 1194 provides that an employee who is paid less than the legally-required minimum wage or overtime compensation who prevails in a civil action can recover their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This provision is important, because many individual wage and hour claims are small, and, absent the possibility of recovering attorneys’ fees, many private attorneys will not take them.

In Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., B322697 (March 25, 2024) the court considered whether a trial judge could award no attorney’s fees or costs to a plaintiff who had won $7,659.63 after a seven-day jury trial. The trial judge in that case had done so after finding that the plaintiff”s attorney had severely over litigated the case, which should have been brought in a court of limited jurisdiction because it was worth less than $25,000.

The court of appeal found that even given these facts the trial judge was required to award reasonable fees and costs. However, the court noted that “trial courts must always be guided by what is reasonable and exercise their discretion to strike costs or reduce fees they find unreasonable.”

If you have an individual claim for unpaid wages, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law. We can be reached at (510) 444-4400, or at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

The Transportation Worker Exemption: What it is, why it matters, and what we can learn from two 2024 cases addressing it.

In recent years, many employers have sought to shield themselves from class actions, as well as individual claims of all sorts, by requiring their workers to sign arbitration agreements. These agreements usually bar any kind of collective action. They also require workers to proceed in arbitration forums rather than in court. The reason for this development is clear: Employers want to avoid class actions. They also want to avoid being accountable to a jury and/or a judge. Instead, they would rather have any claims made against them decided by an arbitrator whom they pay for.

One of the main reasons that employers can get away with this tactic is that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides generally that arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. § 2. This clause largely prevents states from limiting the scope of arbitration agreements. See, e.g., Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 360 (holding that Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 was abrogated by United States Supreme Court precedent interpreting the FAA).

However, due to historical reasons not explored here, the FAA provides that “nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U. S. C. § 1. This is known as the transportation worker exemption. Generally speaking, workers who fall within the scope of that exemption are not required to arbitrate claims against their employers.

Over twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the transportation worker exemption in a case called Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). In that case, the plaintiff had argued that section 1 of the FAA exempts all contracts of employment, regardless of what a worker does. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding instead that  the general phrase “class of workers engaged in … commerce” is “controlled and defined by reference to” the specific categories “seamen” and “railroad employees” that precede it. 532 U.S. at 115.

In other words, the transportation worker exception must be interpreted narrowly, limiting its applicability to the contracts of workers who are similar to “seamen” and “railroad employees.”

More recently, however, this tide seems to have turned a bit in favor of workers. In 2019, the Supreme Court held that the exemption’s reference to “contracts of employment” applies both to employer-employee agreements and to agreements with independent contractors. See New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019) 586 U.S. 105, 116. Then, in 2022, the Supreme Court held that the transportation worker exemption applied to a worker who loaded and unloaded cargo from airplanes that travelled in interstate commerce. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022) 596 U.S. 450, 463.

2024 has brought more good news for workers regarding the exemption, both from the Supreme Court and from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ortiz v. Randstad

First, in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2024) 95 F.4th 1152, 1161–1162, the Ninth Circuit applied the test set forth in Saxon and concluded that a worker who performed warehouse work in California was covered by the exemption. In that case, the plaintiff’s job duties included exclusively warehouse work: transporting packages to and from storage racks, helping other employees in obtaining packages so they could be shipped, and assisting another department with preparing packages for their subsequent shipment. The court noted that the plaintiff was not involved in unloading shipping containers upon their arrival or loading them into trucks when they left the warehouse.

Turning to Saxon‘s second step, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court had correctly concluded that the plaintiff’s class of workers “play[ed] a direct and ‘necessary role in the free flow of goods’ across borders” and “actively ‘engaged in transportation’ ” of such goods. The plaintiff handled Adidas products near the very heart of their supply chain. In each case, the relevant goods were still moving in interstate commerce when the employee interacted with them, and each employee played a necessary part in facilitating their continued movement.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s job description met all three benchmarks laid out in Saxon: he fulfilled a small but nevertheless “direct and necessary” role in the interstate commerce of goods by ensuring that goods would reach their final destination by processing and storing them while they awaited further interstate transport. He was also “actively engaged” and “intimately involved with” transportation: he handled goods as they went through the process of entering, temporarily occupying, and subsequently leaving the warehouse—a necessary step in their ongoing interstate journey to their final destination.

He was therefore actively engaged in the interstate commerce of goods. So the exemption applied and he was free to bring his class action claims against the defendant.

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

Then, in April 2024, a unanimous Supreme Court clarified that a transportation worker does not have to work for a company in the transportation industry to be exempt under section 1 of the FAA. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC (2024) 601 U.S. –, 144 S.Ct. 905, 909. In that case, the plaintiffs delivered baked goods made by Flowers Foods (which makes Wonder Bread, among other things). The Second District Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were in the “bakery industry” not the transportation industry. The Supreme Court rejected that analysis, holding instead that what mattered was what the plaintiffs actually did.

These cases help to clarify which types of workers are exempt from the FAA which, as discussed above, would generally allow them to bring class actions and other types of claims in court. If you have questions about your rights at work, please feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law and to make use of our free and confidential intake process. We can be reached at (510) 444-4400, or at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

California Supreme Court Rules that Whistleblower Protections Apply to Employees Who Disclose Illegal Conduct Already Known to an Employer

In 1984, the Legislature enacted California Labor Code section 1102.5 in order to protect whistleblowers from retaliation against their employers.  The law was amended in 2003 and again in 2013, to add protections afforded to employees.  In 2013, specifically, the Legislature amended section 1102.5(b), so that an employee’s disclosure “to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or non-compliance” was deemed protected activity.  On May 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court addressed whether reporting a violation that is already known to an employer or agency constitutes a protected disclosure under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) in People ex. Rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., S269456. (more…)