Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a January 14 Bloomberg Law article about recent developments surrounding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a California law that permits employees to stand in the shoes of the state to enforce provisions of the Labor Code on behalf of an entire workforce.

A growing number of employers require workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements, forcing workers into a private court system that deprives them of a judge and jury. Employers also may require employees to waive their right to bring class action lawsuits through a mandatory arbitration agreement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2022 that employers may not require employees to waive their right to bring a PAGA action through an arbitration agreement.  Several important pending lawsuits will define the scope of PAGA, and whether workers must arbitrate some aspects of their PAGA claims. 

Bloomberg law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Defendants are trying to figure out ways to send pieces of [PAGA] cases to arbitration to narrow them and to slow them down.” She also noted that when aspects of PAGA cases are sent to arbitration, the effect of an arbitrator’s ruling on the PAGA claim pending in court is “still an open question.”

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.
​
To read the article in its entirety, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in an April 18 Daily Journal article on the California Supreme Court’s grant of review in Leeper v Shipt. The case involves the legality of so-called “headless” PAGA cases in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual relief and asserts only claims on behalf of other aggrieved employees. The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) deputizes employees to bring a lawsuit to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of the state. Plaintiffs are using the “headless” PAGA tactic in an effort to avoid forced arbitration: while employers often seek to compel individual PAGA claims to arbitration, they typically want the claim on behalf of others to remain in court. If headless cases are permitted, plaintiffs can avoid arbitration altogether.

Recent court rulings have put this strategy into question. In Leeper, the intermediate appellate court held that a PAGA claim necessarily includes an individual claim. If the Supreme Court affirms Leeper, PAGA plaintiffs will no longer be permitted to bring headless PAGA cases to avoid arbitration. On April 22, the California Court of Appeal issued another decision holding that headless PAGA cases are not permitted, relying on Leeper.

Two other Court of Appeal decisions hold that headless PAGA cases are permitted, demonstrating the deepening split on this issue among California’s judges. In one of those cases, Rogriguez v Packers Sanitation, a petition for review is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Given the overlap of issues, the Court will likely grant review.

Interestingly, neither party in Leeper asked the Supreme Court for review. Instead, the Court granted review on its own motion, and deemed the plaintiff the appealing party. The Court certified two questions on appeal to be briefed and argued. First, does every PAGA claim include individual and non-individual claims regardless of what the complaint actually alleges? Second, can a plaintiff choose to only bring representative PAGA claims?
​
The Daily Journal quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “It's going to be the next big PAGA case before the state Supreme Court.” Earlier this year, Ms. Teukolsky predicted the California Supreme Court would weigh in to clarify this issue given the confusion in the lower courts.