Class & Collective Actions

Subscribe to Class & Collective Actions via RSS

On July 1, 2024 California Governor Newsom signed “compromise” PAGA reform bills into law (AB 2282 and SB 92) (PAGA Reform), which took the PAGA repeal initiative we told you about in May (see here) off the November 5, 2024 ballot.  

On the bright side for employers, the new law shows leniency toward employers who can show they have taken reasonable steps toward PAGA compliance, through (among other things) caps on damages and expanded cure provisions. That said, employers will still need to be diligent to avoid wage and hour violations. One reason: while the ballot initiative (if passed) would have prevented plaintiffs’ attorneys from recovering fees, the PAGA Reform still allows plaintiffs to collect reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition, the PAGA Reform allows employees to keep a greater percentage of the recovery than before, meaning there is still plenty of incentive for employees to file PAGA claims–even with the employer-friendly changes.

We hit the highlights of the PAGA Reform here.

Effective date

The PAGA Reform applies to PAGA civil complaints and notices of PAGA claims provided to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or after June 19, 2024. Prior PAGA rules will apply to claims pending on or before June 19 or based on notices sent prior to June 19. (Though note that certain cure provisions do not take effect until October 1, 2024–see more below.)

Stricter standing requirements, and statute of limitations questions clarified

Under PAGA Reform, employees are now required to show they “personally suffered” each of the violations of the Labor Code they seek to pursue in a representative capacity under PAGA. Before the new law, if an employee could prove a single Labor Code violation, the employee could sue in a representative capacity on the same or any other Labor Code violation–even if the employee had not been personally affected by the other violations. (Note, the new standing requirement does not apply to certain nonprofit legal aid organizations that have served as counsel of record for PAGA civil actions for at least 5 years prior to January 1, 2025.)

In addition, PAGA Reform clarifies that the statute of limitations to bring a PAGA claim is one year (the period prescribed under Section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure)–dismissing interpretations that stemmed from the California Court of Appeals decision in Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. that the PAGA statute of limitations defines the liability period for a PAGA claim, but otherwise places no time restriction on who may pursue a PAGA claim.

However, even if an employee meets the statute of limitations under PAGA, if the LWDA (or any of its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees) has already–on the “same facts and theories”–timely cited an employer for violation of the same section of the Labor Code under which the employee is attempting to recover a civil penalty, or initiated a proceeding under Section 98.3 (allowing the Labor Commissioner to prosecute certain violations, including wage-related violations), the employee is barred from pursing that civil penalty. This restriction remains from prior PAGA rules, and helps to ensure employers are not penalized twice for the same conduct.

Courts’ power to manage PAGA claims clarified

Under PAGA Reform, courts have specified power to manage PAGA claims, including by limiting the scope of any claim to ensure it can be effectively tried, and limiting the evidence presented at trial–following the lead of the California Supreme Court decision Estrada v. Royal Carpet Mills, Inc., which held that though trial courts do not have inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds, a trial court can use its case management procedures to ensure that PAGA claims can be tried effectively.

Injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees

PAGA plaintiffs can now seek injunctive relief in any circumstances under which the LWDA could seek injunctive relief–in addition to the civil penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs PAGA plaintiffs can seek. However, injunctive relief is not available for violation of a posting, notice, agency reporting or filing requirement, unless the filing or reporting requirement involves mandatory payroll or workplace injury reporting.Continue Reading PAGA Reform: A Breath of (Some?) Fresh Air for Employers

This fall, California voters will have the opportunity to decide the fate of the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). After receiving more than the 700,000 signatures in support, the “California Employee Civil Action Law and PAGA Repeal Initiative” has qualified for the November 5, 2024 state ballot. If the initiative passes, PAGA will be repealed and replaced with the “Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act,” which will double the statutory and civil penalties for willful state labor law violations, require 100% of monetary penalties be awarded to employees, and provide resources to employers to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws. The new law will preclude plaintiffs’ attorneys from recovering any fees in actions brought under the statute and impose other requirements to effectively “de-deputize” citizen attorneys general.

What Would the New Law Do?

In response to wide ranging criticism of PAGA, the ballot initiative seeks to repeal and replace PAGA with the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act. If passed, the initiative would:

  • Double statutory and civil penalties for willful violations;
  • Award 100% of monetary penalties to employees (instead of the current 25%);
  • Provide resources to employers to ensure labor compliance and allow employers opportunities to cure violations without penalties;
  • Require that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) be a party to all labor complaints;
  • Prohibit award of attorneys’ fees (which are currently permitted under PAGA); and
  • Require that the state legislature fully fund the DLSE to meet the division’s requirements by law.

Continue Reading Is the End in Sight for PAGA Actions? Californians May Vote “YES” on November 5, 2024.

The Department of Labor’s “new” rule for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act took effect March 11, 2024. The DOL’s Final Rule returns employers to a familiar pre-Trump administration totality of the circumstances test that focuses on the “economic realities” of the worker’s situation. The practical impact is that it is now harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, and it will likely increase federal wage and hour claims.

There are mounting legal challenges to the Final Rule contesting the DOL’s rulemaking authority. However, to date, none of the suits have been successful at blocking implementation of the Final Rule. So, for now, it stands.

Practice pointer: different legal tests for different laws

Employers new to the US are often baffled to learn that no single test exists to evaluate independent contractor status for all purposes. This means compliance is complicated since different tests may apply depending on the context. And yes, this also means that it’s feasible for a worker to be an independent contractor for some purposes and an employee for others (such as under state and federal law, for example). Continue reading for a summary of the key tests that come up most often for US multinationals.Continue Reading New DOL Rule Makes it Harder to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors (Plus a Quick Recap of the Key Misclassification Standards Across the US)

Special thanks to Celeste Ang and Stephen Ratcliffe.

We launched the seventh annual edition of The Year Ahead: Global Disputes Forecast, a research-based thought leadership surveying 600 senior legal and risk leaders from large organizations around the world and highlights key issues we anticipate to be crucial for disputes for this year.

We are pleased to share a recent SHRM article, “EEOC General Counsel: Anti-Discrimination Damages Caps Are Too Low,” with insights from our own JT Charron. Million-dollar jury verdicts in equal employment opportunity cases sometimes mask large cuts in final judgment due to federal caps on compensatory and punitive damages. Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general…

Combining the views of 600 senior in-house lawyers at multinational companies across four continents with the insights of Baker McKenzie experts in tax, employment and antitrust, the 7th Edition of our Global Disputes Forecast helps in-house counsel see around corners as they prepare for 2024. The forecast includes detailed predictions for disputes involving ESG, cybersecurity…

Illinois employers, do you utilize any workforce monitoring or security measures, such as time clocks, that involve individuals’: 

  • Fingerprints
  • Retina or iris scans
  • Scans of hand or face geometry
  • Voiceprints
  • Biometric information (information based on the above that is used by the company to identify an individual)

If so, read ahead because the Illinois Supreme Court just decided that doing so, without strict compliance with the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), could be a multi-billion dollar mistake.

In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (issued February 17, 2023), the Court held that a separate BIPA claim accrues each time a private entity scans or transmits an individual’s biometric identifier or information in violation of section 15(b) or 15(d) of BIPA–not just the first time. Employers subject to BIPA now have no margin of error, because noncompliance with sections 15(b) or 15(d) of BIPA could mean cost-prohibitive–even ruinous–damages for the company.Continue Reading BIPA Liability in the Billions? Illinois Employers Beware: Claims Accrue with EACH Separate Scan or Transmission

California employers may soon need to rethink and revise their time-rounding policies–even if they’re neutral. In Camp v. Home Depot, USA, the California Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether, under California law, employers may use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for purposes of paying wages. A decision limiting or prohibiting the practice could require major changes to common timekeeping practices for payroll purposes, so employers–especially those engaging in time rounding–will want to keep a close eye on developments.

Here’s what’s happened so far, and what employers should do now.Continue Reading Is Time Rounding Over for California Employers? The California Supreme Court Will Weigh In

California’s latest attempt to restrict employment arbitration was foiled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last Wednesday. On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel decided that AB 51 (which prohibits employers from “forcing” job applicants or employees to enter into pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements covering certain discrimination and retaliation claims) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior decision in the same case, issued by the same three-judge panel, which partially upheld AB 51 in 2021. While we expect the California Attorney General to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s February 15 decision, California employers can breathe a sigh of relief for now knowing it’s still lawful for most to continue to require arbitration agreements.Continue Reading California Employers Still Can Require Arbitration. For Now.

In 2023, uncertainty is the new certainty, with the economic cycle replacing Covid-19 as the main driver of instability. Experience, along with the insights we’ve gathered from more than 600 senior lawyers at large corporations across the globe, point to an anticipated rise in employment disputes. Organizations should proactively identify risk and involve dispute practitioners…