In this consolidated appeal and writ proceeding, we address two questions involving the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). The first question is whether the version of PAGA in effect from mid-2016 to mid-2024 authorized an aggrieved employee to bring a PAGA action that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. Such lawsuits are sometimes referred to as “headless” PAGA actions because the plaintiff employee has chosen not to pursue civil penalties for violations he or she suffered personally. (CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872, 882 (CRST Expedited).) We again conclude such PAGA actions were allowed. (Ibid.)
The second question arises only if headless PAGA actions were allowed and involves standing to pursue the PAGA action as the representative of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). To have standing, a PAGA plaintiff must be an “aggrieved employee.” (See § 2699, former subd. (c) [definition of aggrieved employee].) The question is whether the plaintiff employee’s status as aggrieved employee is a separate dispute that must be resolved in arbitration before the headless PAGA action proceeds in court. This question does not appear to have been decided by a California appellate court since the United States Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking River). We conclude the parties’ agreement to arbitrate certain disputes does not encompass the issue of plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee because that dispute is one the plaintiff’s principal, Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), has against the employer.
We therefore deny the employer’s petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer to the headless PAGA action and affirm the order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the standing issue.
There are 0 comments