The California Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument on the much-anticipated Adolph (Erik) v. Uber Technologies, Inc., (Uber), accepting Justice Sotomayor’s invitation in Viking River Cruises to have the “last word” on whether an employee forced to arbitrate their individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims maintains statutory standing to pursue
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana gave California employers a brief reprieve from the onslaught of nonarbitrable Private Attorneys General Act claims.
Before then, PAGA’s structure was unique — allowing an aggrieved employee to bring a nonarbitrable suit on behalf of the state to recover penalties for Labor Code
There might be a light flickering at the end of a dark tunnel California employers have been walking through for more than 15 years. In December 2021, California’s Secretary of State approved the distribution of a petition to put on the 2022 ballot an initiative that would effectively repeal California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
In Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., on February, 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that’s a mixed bag for employers. Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., No. 19-15382, 2021 WL 867583 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2021).
First, on the positive side, the panel reversed the district court’s ruling that Virgin American, Inc.
On Wednesday, a panel of the California Court of Appeal’s First District unanimously held that venue for an action alleging violation of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) is proper in any county where an allegedly aggrieved employee worked and suffered violations of the Labor Code. In Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Superior Court of
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. and unanimously reversed the California Court of Appeal. The Court held an employee does not lose standing to pursue claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., even when that employee settles his individual Labor Code claims asserted in that same action.
In Reins, the plaintiff claimed his employer had misclassified him as an exempt employee. He alleged the usual panoply of Labor Code claims (failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties) and sought civil penalties under the PAGA. The plaintiff later settled all of his individual claims, but not the PAGA claims.
Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs: No Injury, No Problem, Says Unanimous California Supreme Court
On Sept. 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson) delivered a victory for California employers, clarifying that a plaintiff bringing a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action may not recover as a “civil penalty” the “wages” referenced in Cal. Labor Code section 558, and thereby
On April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the fee shifting provisions of California Labor Code sections 128.5 and 1194 do not apply to claims for wages made pursuant California Labor Code section 226.7 for failure to authorize meal and/or rest periods. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., ____ Cal. 4th ___ (2012).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court’s Kirby Decision: If Money Talks, is This Another Post-Brinker Blow to Meal and Rest Period Claims?