Individual Employee Claim No Longer Necessary To Be a Representative In a PAGA Lawsuit

Last month the California Court of Appeal in Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (April 18, 2024) 2024 WL 1673112, made it even easier for a California employee to bring a lawsuit under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) by holding that an individual can maintain such a suit even if the employee does not bring an individual claim against the employer.

In Balderas, the plaintiff Lizbeth Balderas filed a PAGA complaint against Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., her former employer (“Fresh Start”), on behalf of 500 other aggrieved employees for Fresh Start’s alleged failure to provide rest and meal breaks, accurate wage statements, timely wage payments and wages at termination. Ms. Balderas acknowledged that she was not suing in her individual capacity, but only as a PAGA representative. Consequently, the trial court entered an order striking her complaint because she did not have standing to “pursue a ‘non-individual’ or representative PAGA action on behalf of other employees.”

In so ordering, the trial court relied on a key phrase from the important US Supreme Court Viking River Cruises case: “Under PAGA’s standing requirement, a plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action.” (Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639, 663.) Plaintiff responded by directing the Court of Appeals to the subsequent California Supreme Court case Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, in which the Court specifically declined to expand the statutory requirements for standing for a PAGA representative. The California Supreme Court highlighted that the only requirements for standing are that the employee was an “aggrieved” employee and was subject to one or more violations. (Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 1120.) The Court of Appeals held that Ms. Balderas satisfied these requirements.

California courts continue to push back against any limitations on employees’ rights under PAGA. The holding in Balderas further removes potential impediments from employees filing costly legal actions against employers because the employee no longer needs to incur the costs of pursuing and prosecuting an individual claim against an employer. This could result in even more PAGA lawsuits and potential risks of increased exposure to California employers.

For more information or specific guidance on how this decision can impact your business, please contact Jennifer Morin.