PAGA lawsuits preserve getting simpler to carry—and one courtroom simply took it a step additional. Staff now not must carry a person PAGA declare to have standing to sue on a consultant foundation.
Let’s first get a lay of the land:
- A PAGA declare consists of a person PAGA declare and a consultant PAGA declare.
- To carry a PAGA declare, an “aggrieved worker” should have labored for the alleged [company] violator and personally sustained only one Labor Code violation throughout the limitations interval.
In Balderas v. Contemporary Begin Harvesting, Inc., 101 Cal. App. fifth 533 (2024), the plaintiff sued her former employer on behalf of different staff however not in her particular person capability (that’s, she introduced solely a consultant PAGA declare, which is irregular). The Court docket of Enchantment, overturning the trial courtroom, departed from federal authority, Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, and held that an worker needn’t have a person PAGA declare to proceed on a consultant foundation. Partly, the Court docket of Enchantment rationalized its irrational choice saying that PAGA’s intent is to permit staff to behave on behalf of the state even when they haven’t alleged particular person PAGA violations, doubtlessly subjecting employers to extra PAGA claims. Thus, the Court docket of Enchantment bucked the federal courts and adopted a large interpretation of the current Adolph v. Uber Eats case (holding that standing solely requires prior employment and a single violation).
Whereas this is only one Court docket of Appeals case, and others could not observe it, the sensible impact is that California employers will likely be topic to extra PAGA claims and could have a tough time arguing {that a} consultant PAGA declare needs to be stayed whereas the person PAGA declare proceeds in arbitration. It looks as if there isn’t that a lot left for the courts to do to twist the PAGA knife.