Duane Morris Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2024

with the defendant, the plaintiffs were required to accept the terms of the defendant’s Fleet Agreement, a 15-page document outlining various terms and conditions, including an arbitration provision and a representative action waiver for PAGA claims. The defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that the PAGA waiver was unenforceable. However, the trial court stayed the action pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River , and the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Adolph . On appeal, the California Court of Appeal remanded the action to the trial court in order to grant the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. In Viking River , the Supreme Court clarified that individual PAGA claims must be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but the FAA does not preempt the unenforceability of contractual waivers for representative PAGA claims. The California Supreme Court's Adolph decision confirmed that a plaintiff retains standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court even after individual claims are compelled to arbitration. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court resolved the issues that existed when the appeal was filed. With the legal landscape clarified, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims should be stayed pending individual arbitration. The plaintiff contended that a stay was not warranted. The Court of Appeal agreed with the defendant, and thereby remanded the action to the trial court to exercise its discretion in light of Adolph , considering the interest of judicial efficiency and the absence of overlapping issues in settled arbitrations. 2. Decisions Regarding PAGA And Class Certification California courts, however, in appropriate circumstances will deny class certification based on lack of class-wide proof or problems with the plaintiff’s own claims, which may also impact related PAGA representative claims. In Cessna, et al. v. Southern California Edison Co., 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 293 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 17, 2023) the plaintiff, a senior power plant planner, filed a class action against his employer, Southern California Edison (SCE) seeking damages for California Labor Code violations for allegedly misclassifying him and others similarly-situated as exempt employees. Id. at *1. The plaintiff also sought civil penalties under PAGA. Id. Following discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which included multiple declarations from other planners characterizing their work as largely routine, standardized, and requiring little independent judgment and discretion, such that their job duties could not qualify as exempt under the Labor Code. Id. at *4. In opposition, SCE submitted its own supporting declarations from senior planners directly refuting plaintiff’s declarations, and emphasizing that the work of each planner varied significantly, particularly between district offices and assigned geographic locations. Id. at *5-6. The trial court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion, finding that individualized issues - namely, how planners spend their time from day-to-day - predominated over the central question of whether the planners were exempt employees. Id. at *7. The plaintiff thereafter moved to proceed with his PAGA claim on behalf of all senior planners, which the trial court also denied. Id. at *8. The trial court determined that the PAGA claim would be unmanageable, since it would necessitate multiple individualized inquiries into the senior planners’ workdays and activities in order to determine liability against SCE. Id. at *9. The plaintiff appealed both decisions, but was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s rulings, and noted that the evidence presented by both parties showed significant variations in the job duties and responsibilities of planners, making it too difficult to determine whether they were properly categorized as exempt employees on a class-wide or representative basis. Id. at *14. Therefore, Court of Appeal ruled that the plaintiff could not proceed with his claims on a class-wide or representative basis under the PAGA. Id. at *19-20. The plaintiff in Woodworth, et al. v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, 93 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (Cal. App. July 24, 2023), a registered nurse, filed a class action and PAGA claim alleging that her employer, Loma Linda University Medical Center, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Following years of litigation, only the plaintiff’s individual claim for failure to provide rest periods remained. Id. at 1045. The trial court had granted four motions for summary judgement in favor of the medical center, denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification of multiple classes, and denied her motion to strike

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online