January 28, 2022

Volume XII, Number 28

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

A Cautionary Tale for Employers Who Settle Dueling PAGA Claims

A California appellate court recently upended a representative PAGA and class action settlement because the named plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies under PAGA because he failed to identify each separate theory of liability.

The case, which the Court of Appeal certified for publication, provides a guide for employers on how to challenge cases where a plaintiff has not exhausted a particular theory of liability.  But the case also serves as a cautionary tale for employers looking to resolve successive cases with one settlement.

The named plaintiff in the case, Josue Uribe (“Uribe”), initially sought individual damages against his employer, Crown Building Maintenance Company (“Crown”) and included a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  He filed the requisite letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), identifying his employer’s alleged failure to reimburse business expenses. In the LWDA letter, he mentioned expenses “for purchasing slip resistant shoes and maintaining his uniform,” that were not reimbursed.

However, in a parallel case against Crown, a different employee, Isabel Garibay (“Garibay”), had previously filed a class action with a PAGA cause of action against Crown that included a claim for failure to reimburse – but for cell phone expenses.  Uribe’s letter to the LWDA never mentioned cell phone expenses and only focused on reimbursement for shoes and his uniform.

Ultimately, Uribe and Crown entered into a settlement that purported to release claims, including a claim for unreimbursed cell phone use. The settlement was conditioned on Uribe filing an amended complaint converting his lawsuit into a class action and including unreimbursed cell phone costs as another basis for his claims.

Garibay intervened and sought to block the settlement.  The Court of Appeal agreed with Garibay that Uribe’s letter to the LWDA failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the trial court should not have approved the settlement. The Court held the release, which included cell phone expenses, was overbroad.

The Court explained that the “plain meaning” of the facts and theories in the PAGA notice did not include cell phone expenses and, as a result, the notice was inadequate. A bare reference to a section of the labor code pertaining to reimbursement is “insufficient to preserve a PAGA claim,” according to the Court. Otherwise, the Court explained, “Uribe’s notice could be expanded beyond recognition to include “claims for tools, cleaning supplies, automobile or mileage expenses, and more.”

In addition, because Uribe and Crown did not include a severance clause in their agreement that would strike non-viable settlement terms, the Court of Appeal ruled that the settlement could not survive.

The takeaway for employers looking to settle parallel PAGA actions is to make sure that the LWDA letter is broad enough to cover all claims and, when in doubt, include a severance clause in the agreement.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 315
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Emily Burkhardt Vicente Employment Lawyer
Partner

Emily co-chairs the firm’s labor and employment group and has a national practice focusing on complex employment and wage and hour litigation.

Emily is an accomplished trial lawyer who defends employers in complex employment litigation, including California and FLSA wage and hour class and collective actions, California representative PAGA actions, employment discrimination class actions, and complex whistleblower matters. Her clients include major retailers, financial services and life sciences companies, manufacturers and transportation...

213 532 2153
Veronica Torrejón Labor & Employment Lawyer Hunton Andrews Kurth Law Firm
Associate

Veronica’s litigation practice focuses on complex employment litigation, including defending employers against allegations of breach of employment and separation agreements, failure to pay bonus and wrongful termination. 

Prior to joining the firm, Veronica worked at a prominent national law firm where she handled an array of complex commercial disputes.

Prior to law school, Veronica was a journalist at The Morning Call (Allentown, PA) where she primarily covered the healthcare industry. She also wrote for the Los...

213 532 2021
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement