September 19, 2019

September 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Court Rejects Motion To Arbitrate PAGA Claim Under State Labor Code

A recent appeals court decision out of California continues the trend of preventing arbitration of claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District recently held that employees cannot agree to arbitrate or waive any PAGA claims, including ostensibly-individual claims for unpaid wages under Labor Code Section 558. The court held that “a single PAGA claim seeking to recover section 558 civil penalties may not be ‘split’ between that portion of the claim seeking an ‘amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages’ and that portion of the claim seeking the $50 or $100 per-violation, per-pay-period assessment imposed for each wage violation.”

In Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC, the plaintiff alleged a variety of Labor Code violations, and brought a one-count PAGA complaint under Labor Code Section 558. The plaintiff sought both underpaid wages and the $50 to $100 per violation penalties available under section 558. However, the plaintiff was subject to a collective bargaining agreement requiring employees to arbitrate wage and hour disputes on an individual basis. Thus, the defendants moved to compel individual arbitration of the portion of the plaintiff’s claim pertaining to unpaid wages, and sought to stay the remaining portion of the plaintiff’s claims.

Under PAGA, any civil penalties recovered under section 558(a)(1) or (2) are divided 75-25 between the state and the affected employee, respectively, whereas any underpaid wages go solely to the affected employee or employees. Because “the recovery available under Labor Code section 558 is unpaid wages and the right of recovery inures solely to the benefit of the employee and not to the State,” the defendants in Mejia argued that the plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate those claims for “victim-specific relief” (i.e. underpaid wages). The trial court rejected the defendants’ argument, and the Fourth District affirmed.

The court explained that, while section 558 provides for two separate types of recovery (penalties and wages), “the ‘civil penalty’ provided for in section 558 is single civil penalty...” According to the Fourth District, a PAGA plaintiff “is stepping into the shoes of the Labor Commissioner,” and seeks relief for one “and only one ‘particular injury’ – namely, the injury to the public that the ‘state labor law enforcement agencies’ were created to safeguard.” Thus, the Fourth District reasoned that even if two forms of relief are available under section 558, a PAGA plaintiff seeks to enforce one “primary right,” which cannot be divided into separate actions.

The Fourth District’s decision in Mejia echoes its prior decision in Lawson v. ZB, N.A.and joins the Second District’s side of the division among California appellate courts. On the other side, in Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P., the Fifth District came to an opposite conclusion, determining that unlike claims for penalties, claims for unpaid or underpaid wages under section 558 seek “victim-specific relief” and can be “split” off and arbitrated. Lawson is currently pending before the California Supreme Court; oral arguments were conducted on June 5, 2019.

Arbitration generally, and arbitration of wage and hour disputes, in particular, remain hot-button issues. And as the Fourth District explained, the decision in Mejia “lies at the intersection of California labor law and arbitration law.” The key takeaway from Mejia for employers is that, as California employers are no doubt aware, PAGA stands as a barrier to compelling individual arbitration of some California Labor Code claims. How much of a barrier it is may become clearer after the California Supreme Court addresses the issue raised by Mejia when it decides Lawson v. ZB, N.A.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

John Kuenstler Employment Attorney Barnes & Thornburg
Partner

John dedicates his practice exclusively to the representation of employers in labor and employment and business matters. He counsels and represents a diverse client base on a national and regional basis in virtually all aspects of labor and employment law.

John’s experience includes the defense of single- and multi-plaintiff, collective and class action litigation pertaining to wrongful discharge, discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, Title VII, ADA, ADEA, Section 1981, FMLA, FLSA, ERISA, USERRA, WARN and OSHA claims before federal and state courts and administrative...

312-338-5924
Peter J. Wozniak Barnes Thornburg Chicago  Labor Employment
Partner

Pete Wozniak is a vigorous advocate who strives to help his clients navigate issues that can be fraught with challenges as painlessly and efficiently as possible. He is a candid and personable counselor, offering his clients direct advice by leveraging his deep experience performing a broad range of outcome critical functions for complex labor and employment matters.

Pete represents clients across a number of industries, including transportation and logistics, restaurants, retail, manufacturing, and temporary staffing. Handling a number of high profile matters, he identifies the appropriate tools and techniques to reach the optimal resolution for the client in the matter at hand, always cognizant of how the matter fits into the client’s overall operations.

Pete partners with his clients to understand the ins and outs of their businesses, and to help ease the impacts that litigation may have on their operations. His holistic approach allows him to advise clients regarding approaches and resolutions that would be most favorable for their overall business, now and in the future. While striving to help clients minimize the disruptive impact of lawsuits on their operations, Pete understands the monetary costs of litigation, including the potentially-prohibitive costs of electronic discovery. Using that understanding, he provides counsel and litigation strategy to deploy the most efficient resources possible.

Among other areas, Pete defends employers throughout the United States in a variety of complex employment discrimination class actions and single plaintiff litigation, wage and hour class and collective actions and single plaintiff litigation, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) litigation. His experience spans the entire spectrum of litigation, including pretrial investigation, settlement negotiation, fact and expert discovery, trial, and post-trial appeals.

Because the law and our society are ever-evolving – particularly as social media outreach continues to accelerate and expand – Pete keeps up-to-date on legal and social trends and employment-related rules, regulations and decisions, so he can best counsel his clients when the inevitable changes may have an impact their business, whether inside or outside the courtroom.

Before practicing law, Pete was a sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve, serving as a logistician.

312-214-2113
Mark Wallin, Attorney, BT, Chicago, Labor Employment
Of Counsel

In order to provide the best counsel, Mark Wallin believes it is his role to understand his clients’ business needs so he can help them determine what resolution will provide the most benefit. His keen ability to understand his clients’ practical concerns allows him to advise on the best path to successfully resolve issues – whether through traditional litigation or negotiated resolution.

In the course of his practice, Mark has focused on providing the highest-level of service to his clients and building long-term relationships. Specifically, he defends employers in a wide range of...

312-214-4591