California Employment Law Blog

"PAGA the Extended Version" - Court of Appeal Ruling Expands Potential PAGA Penalties

Posted by Tim Del Castillo | May 23, 2018 | 0 Comments

Man with Security jacket

Today, the California Court of Appeal in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., expanded the scope of potential penalties in Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") lawsuits.  

As those familiar with PAGA lawsuits know, a PAGA action permits an "aggrieved employee," meaning one who has suffered a violation of the Labor Code, to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State and other aggrieved employees.  What most litigants and courts have assumed is that the individual representative PAGA plaintiff could only recover penalties if he or she actually suffered that particular violation of the Labor Code.  In other words, if a Plaintiff missed a meal break, she could recover penalties for that violation, but not for an alleged unrelated unlawful wage deduction or other Labor Code violation that never affected her.

Not so.  The Court of Appeal held that as long as the representative plaintiff in a PAGA lawsuit experienced at least one violation of the Labor Code of any kind, he or she could collect penalties for any and all Labor Code violations that happened at that employer.  That's pretty broad.  

The Court reasoned that the plain language of the statute requires this interpretation because it defines an "aggrieved employee" as an employee against whom "one or more" of the alleged violations was committed.  Dismissing the employer's argument that such an application of PAGA would violate standing requirements, the Court reasoned that "traditional standing requirements do not necessarily apply to qui tam actions (like PAGA) since the plaintiff is acting on behalf of the government."  The Court even went so far as to state that because the government is the real party in interest in a PAGA action, "it would be arbitrary to limit the plaintiff's pursuit of penalties to only those Labor Code violations that affected him or her personally."

The employer in this case will likely appeal and the issue may make its way to the California Supreme Court.  This is a case to keep an eye on.  An immediate consequence is that it will likely result in even broader PAGA notices alleging any suspected Labor Code violations, regardless of whether the individual plaintiff experienced them at all.  Employers faced with a PAGA letter or PAGA litigation would be wise to engage defense counsel experienced with PAGA defense.    

About the Author

Tim 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. Attorney Tim Del Castillo will personally speak with you about your case and provide you with an honest analysis. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.

Copyright © 2018 Tim Del Castillo

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