California Supreme Court
Employees Do Not Lose Standing to Pursue PAGA Claims if They Settle and Dismiss Their Individual Labor Code ClaimsKIM v. REINS
Plaintiff Justin Kim worked for Defendant Reins as a restaurant training manager. Kim filed a class action for various Labor Code violations, claiming Reins had misclassified him and others as exempt and failed to pay them overtime. Reins moved to compel arbitration of Kim’s individual claims, dismiss the class claims, and stay the PAGA action pending the arbitration. The trial court granted the motion. Several months later, Kim and Reins settled the individual claims, leaving only the PAGA action. Reins then moved for summary adjudication of the PAGA claim on the ground that Kim no longer had standing because he was no longer an aggrieved employee now that his rights had been redressed by settlement of his claims. The trial court agreed and entered judgment for Reins, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Kim sought review.
PAGA’S DEFINITION OF “AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE” DOES NOT REQUIRE A CURRENT ECONOMIC INJURY
The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) provides for additional civil penalties for certain Labor Code violations, which plaintiffs may seek on behalf of the state. Only an “aggrieved employee” may seek PAGA penalties. An aggrieved employee is a person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. Because PAGA was intended to protect employees its provisions are construed broadly and in favor of protection. Section 2699(c)
CELA INVOLVEMENT
Congratulations to CELA member Eric Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC! Thank you to CELA members Aaron Kaufmann for his Amicus Brief for CELA and Cynthia Rice for her Amicus Brief for CRLA!
CA Supreme Court. 3/12/20. 9 Cal.5th 73. Opinion by Justice Corrigan.
Read More