California Employment Law Blog

PAGA Claims Can’t Be Split Even When Wages Are Sought

Posted by Timothy B. Del Castillo | Aug 17, 2019 | 0 Comments

lady justice

Recently, in Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance, the California Court of Appeal shut down one more potential line of defense for California employers facing PAGA claims in court despite the existence of an arbitration agreement.  As we previously explained, PAGA allows an employee who has experienced at least one violation of the Labor Code to recover penalties for any and all of the employer's Labor Code violations, regardless of whether the additional violations actually affected the employee.  And PAGA claims are not subject to pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate. 

Labor Code section 558 sets forth a civil penalty that the Labor Commissioner—and by extension, a private employee under PAGA—may collect in the event of an underpayment of wages.  Section 558 also provides that “[w]ages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected employee.”  Based on this provision of section 558, the employers in Mejia argued that the plaintiff's claim for underpaid wages seeks “victim-specific relief” because such wages are to be paid to the “affected employee.”  Thus, according to the employers, employees seeking unpaid wages in a PAGA case must arbitrate the portion of the PAGA claim seeking underpaid wages.  Therefore only the remaining portion of the PAGA claim may be brought in a judicial forum where an agreement to arbitrate exists.  In other words, employers argued that where an arbitration agreement exists, a PAGA claim under 558 must be split between arbitration and litigation in court. 

This is not the first case to have addressed this argument, and the issue will ultimately be resolved by the California Supreme Court.  The Courts of Appeal in Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (Lawson) and Zakaryan v. The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., also held that a single PAGA claim may not be split because no private right of action exists under PAGA as the representative plaintiff acts on behalf of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  However, the California Supreme Court granted review of the issue in Lawson, so we have not yet heard the final word on the issue.  Given the pro-employee and pro-PAGA tendencies of the California Supreme Court, I would be surprised if the ultimate result in these cases is any different.

Castle Law will continue to monitor this issue.  Meanwhile, any employer facing a claim under PAGA is advised to seek counsel experienced with PAGA defense.

About the Author

Timothy B. Del Castillo

Tim practices employment law in California and represents both employees and employers in federal and state courts, administrative hearings, arbitrations, mediations, and in direct negotiations. Tim also offers advice and counsel and training to businesses to help them achieve compliance with California employment laws.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

QUALITY REPRESENTATION FROM A TRUSTED ADVISOR.

Castle Law’s goal is to become your trusted advisor and to provide real value for all of your employment law needs. To become our client’s trusted advisors, we aim to provide quality representation and sound advice time and again.

FREE CONSULTATION.

There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.

Copyright © 2019 Castle Law: California Employment Counsel

Attorney Timothy B. Del Castillo is responsible for the content on this website, which may contain an advertisement. The information on this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship and no attorney-client relationship is formed until conflicts have been cleared and both parties have signed a written fee agreement. Please do not send any confidential information through the website. The materials and information on this website are for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOMES. Any testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

Menu