Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2025

employers. The employer’s submission of a cure proposal to the LWDA does not prevent the employer from requesting the early evaluation conference. However, no employer can use this notice and “cure” provision more than one time in a 12-month period for violations of the same provision, regardless of the location of the worksite or if it did not cure that same violation upon prior notice. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3(d). There is also a separate process if the only alleged violation the small employer will seek to cure is a violation of Labor Code section 226. In that case, the employer can cure the deficiency within 33 days of the postmark date of the notice and file notice with a description of the cure to both the LWDA and the plaintiff. If the plaintiff disputes this cure, he or she may file notice describing why the cure is being disputed. This process is also on an accelerated timeline, and the LWDA is required to issue a determination within 17 days of receipt of that dispute. The LWDA can either confirm the cure, provide an additional three (3) days for the employer to complete the cure, or allow the employee to file a PAGA claim for violation of Labor Code § 226. If the LWDA does not respond, the employee can continue with his or her PAGA claim. This determination can also be appealed to the superior court. Impact On Employers And Litigation Strategy While the focus may be on the reduction of penalties, the passage of these PAGA reforms has also ushered in a new era for employers. Not only will this greatly impact litigation strategy when dealing with PAGA claims, but also employers now have a tight timeline in which to make important strategic decisions regarding things like election into early evaluation, cure, or other alternative dispute resolution. Many are celebrating the reforms, but it remains to be seen how these reforms will impact PAGA litigation generally. In addition, we anticipate that there will be some bumps as the LWDA and the courts work through new questions raised by these reforms. Each case is unique and employers should work closely with counsel to evaluate each claim. VI. Key Rulings In PAGA Actions In 2024 1. California Supreme Court Rulings The California Supreme Court issued two impactful decisions in 2024. First was its opinion in Turrieta, et al. v. Lyft, Inc ., 16 Cal. 5th 664 (2024), on August 1, 2024. It held that, when an employer is facing multiple overlapping PAGA actions and settles one such action, the plaintiffs in the other PAGA actions are not permitted to intervene in the settled action so as to require a trial court to receive and consider their objections to the settlement, or to seek to vacate the ensuing judgment. The Turrieta decision has significant ramifications for employers facing a multiplicity of PAGA actions and ensures that an employer can settle one such action without substantial interference from other PAGA plaintiffs and their attorneys. In rapid succession between May to July 2018, three Lyft drivers, Olson, Seifu, and Turrieta, each filed separate PAGA actions alleging improper classification as independent contractors. In 2019, Turrieta reached a $15 million settlement with Lyft, which included a $5 million payment to her counsel. As part of the settlement, Turrieta amended her complaint to allege all PAGA claims that could have been brought against Lyft. She then filed a motion for court approval of the settlement. The LWDA did not object to the settlement. However, when Olson and Seifu and their counsel got wind of the settlement, they moved to intervene and objected. The trial court denied the intervention requests, approved the settlement, and then denied motions by Olson and Seifu to vacate the judgment in the Turrieta PAGA action. The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that, as non-parties, Olson and Seifu lacked standing to move to vacate the judgment as only an “aggrieved party” can appeal from a judgment. On the intervention issue, the Court of Appeal explained that the real party in interest in a PAGA action is the State and thus neither Olson nor Seifu had a direct interest in the case. The California Supreme Court then granted review to consider whether a PAGA plaintiff has the right to intervene, or object to, or move to vacate a judgment in a related PAGA action that purports to settle the claims

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