PAGA And The Three Bills: New Legislation Aims To Keep Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Out of Employers’ Porridge
- Written by Riha Pathak
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows employees, who comply with certain notice and filing requirements, to bring lawsuits for Labor Code violations and recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State. Although PAGA was created to enable employees to pursue claims that the State lacked the resources to pursue, PAGA has become an exploited and abused tool for plaintiffs’ attorneys to line their own pockets. Under the current provisions of PAGA, employers face duplicative penalties, limited procedural safeguards, and costly litigation.
For years, some Legislators have attempted to curb PAGA’s excesses. Some Bills were successful, such as AB 1506 (2015), which gave employers the ability to fix paystubs to include the pay period’s start and end dates, and to fix their legal name and address, as further discussed here. Other Bills have not been successful, such as AB 2463 (2016), which was an attempt to establish a $1000 penalty cap for each aggrieved employee. Notably, eight of the nine PAGA Bills introduced last session did not pass.
- Written by Gregory Blueford
Last week, a United States Appeals Court heard oral arguments regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) expanded definition of joint employer in the Browning-Ferris case. In that case, the NLRB expanded its previous standard, which required “direct and immediate control” over terms and conditions of employment to be considered a joint employer, to a more lax rule of “indirect control.” You can read more about the NLRB’s joint employer rule here and here.