PAGA's Greatest Hits: Arias v. Superior Court

• Published date: 24 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Class Actions, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
• Author: Mr Jonathan Slowik and Gregory W. Knopp

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear oral argument later this month in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573, much of the wage and hour bar has turned its attention to Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 248 (2014). Viking River Cruises will decide the fate of a rule announced in Iskanian, holding that an agreement purporting to waive an employee's right to bring a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is unenforceable. (To read about the Viking River Cruises petition, and how state trial courts have reacted to it, click here and here.) But before Iskanian, there was Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009), the O.G. California Supreme Court PAGA case that paved the way for non-class PAGA actions.

Although now commonplace, the plaintiff in Arias employed what at the time was a controversial procedure: he alleged PAGA claims against his employer on a representative basis without attempting to comply with the requirements for a class action. The employer moved to strike the claims, arguing that they were procedurally improper because they failed to comply with the pleading requirements for class actions. The trial court agreed, and struck the claims. Id. at 976.

The Court of Appeal reversed, explaining that for four reasons, a PAGA action need not satisfy traditional class action requirements. First, Labor Code Section 2699(a) states that an aggrieved employee may bring a PAGA action "on behalf of himself of herself and other current or former employees," and may do so "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law." Second, similar language in Business & Professions Code Section 17204 had been interpreted to permit representative actions that were not class actions (although that provision was later amended). Third, PAGA did not expressly require that representative actions comply with class action requirements. Fourth, a PAGA action is essentially a law enforcement action designed to protect the public, not an action designed to provide relief to individual employees. Id. at 981.

The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal's reasoning, and also addressed additional arguments raised by the petitioner. It quickly disposed of the petitioner's arguments that allowing PAGA plaintiffs to pursue representative actions without satisfying class certification requirements would lead to "absurd results" and that such a rule was contrary to PAGA's legislative history...