The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) has statutory authority to collect civil penalties from employers violating certain provisions of the Labor Code. The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) empowers "aggrieved employees" to bring actions to recover civil penalties on the state's behalf when the LWDA declines to pursue them. Recovered penalties are divided, with the LWDA receiving the majority and the remaining portion distributed among the aggrieved employees.

Intervention allows someone not originally involved in a court case to request permission to join because they believe the outcome will affect their rights or interests. In Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024), the Supreme Court had to decide if a PAGA plaintiff could intervene in another plaintiff's ongoing PAGA action with overlapping claims.

Here, Tina Turrieta, Brandon Olson, and Million Seifu, all former drivers for Lyft, Inc., filed separate PAGA actions seeking civil penalties for Lyft's alleged violations of the Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wages, overtime premiums, and business expense reimbursements. Turrieta's action was settled in early December 2019, and a settlement approval hearing was scheduled for January 2, 2020. Before the hearing, Olson and Seifu filed motions to intervene and objected to the settlement, arguing that it did not adequately address their claims.

The trial court denied their motions, approved the settlement, and subsequently denied their motions to vacate the judgment. Olson and Seifu appealed, challenging the settlement and the denial of their motions. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decisions, ruling that Olson and Seifu lacked standing to intervene or challenge the settlement. 

On review by the California Supreme Court, Justice Jenkins, writing for the majority, focused on the scope of a PAGA plaintiff's authority and the statutory framework of PAGA. The Court highlighted that PAGA permits aggrieved employees to commence civil actions for civil penalties on the state's behalf but does not explicitly grant them the authority to intervene in another employee's ongoing PAGA action.

The Court agreed with the lower courts that Olson and Seifu lacked standing to intervene and emphasized that under PAGA, the primary beneficiary of the penalties is the state, and the aggrieved employees act as proxies for the state. Therefore, the court reasoned that Olson and Seifu's role as PAGA plaintiffs in separate actions did not confer upon them a personal interest in the settlement of Turrieta's PAGA claims.

The Court then examined PAGA's legislative history and intent, noting that PAGA was enacted to address the underenforcement of labor laws due to limited government resources. By allowing private enforcement through aggrieved employees, the legislature aimed to augment the state's enforcement capabilities. However, the Court found no indication that the legislature intended to allow overlapping PAGA actions to interfere with each other through intervention.

The Court also considered the mechanisms in place for judicial and LWDA oversight of PAGA settlements. PAGA requires that any proposed settlement be submitted to both the court and the LWDA for review. The Court concluded that these provisions were intended to safeguard the state's interests and prevent inadequate settlements, without the need for intervention by other PAGA plaintiffs.

After Turrieta, employers should understand that they can negotiate settlements in PAGA actions with confidence that once a settlement is approved by the court and the LWDA, it will likely be final and binding, without interference from other PAGA plaintiffs. Employers should be aware that multiple overlapping PAGA actions can be filed, but settlements in one action can potentially resolve related claims.

Aggrieved employees under PAGA should be aware they have the right to bring PAGA actions and seek civil penalties on behalf of the state, but they must be prepared for the LWDA and the court to oversee and approve any settlements. Employees in separate PAGA actions cannot intervene in another's ongoing PAGA action, reinforcing the importance of timely and effective litigation strategies in their own cases.