News & Analysis as of

Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) › Statutory Interpretation

Proskauer - California Employment Law

“Headless” PAGA Action May Proceed In Court

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2025 WL 1874891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) - Espiridion Sanchez filed this PAGA action against his former employer on behalf of himself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees.”...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

CA’s Fifth Appellate District Wades Into “Headless” PAGA Debate

CDF Labor Law LLP on

While we are waiting for the CA Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt to address whether “headless” PAGA claims (i.e., where PAGA representative plaintiffs disavow the “individual” portion of a PAGA claim) are a permissible end...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Super. Ct.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that under pre-reform PAGA, headless PAGA actions in which plaintiffs seek civil penalties only on behalf of other employees and not for violations they personally experienced are...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Will the California Supreme Court Put the Heads Back on Headless PAGA Suits?

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Second District Court of Appeal held that, under the pre-reform PAGA statute, an individual employee need not have been employed or experienced a Labor Code violation during the one-year PAGA limitations period to have...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Court of Appeals Clarifies What Types of Allegations May Be Cured Under Section 2699.3

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

On October 7, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) issued its decision in Quinonez v. Payless 4 Plumbing, Inc., Case No. E074467, clarifying what allegations in a notice letter to the Labor and Workforce...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

9th Circuit Confirms Limited Application of Heightened Penalties for “Subsequent” Labor Code Violations

CDF Labor Law LLP on

On February 23, 2021, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel held in the decision of Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc. (Case No. 19-15382) that employers are not subject to heightened penalties for subsequent violations under the...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Rules that the “Underpaid Wages” Component of Labor Code Section 558 is Not a Civil Penalty under PAGA

Littler on

In ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson), the California Supreme Court held that unpaid wages are not civil penalties under California Labor Code section 558 and are therefore outside the reach of...more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide