The recent decision by the California Supreme Court in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. is a significant win for employers facing multiple lawsuits under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This ruling clarifies that a plaintiff (the person suing) in one PAGA lawsuit does not have the right to intervene or object to a settlement in another, even if that settlement would effectively end their own case. This decision is crucial for employers as it reduces the uncertainty and potential complications when dealing with overlapping PAGA claims.
PAGA allows California employees to sue their employers on behalf of themselves and others for violations of the state’s labor laws. These lawsuits can lead to substantial penalties, and often, multiple plaintiffs bring separate but similar PAGA claims against the same employer. In the past, it was unclear whether a plaintiff in one PAGA case could intervene in another, potentially affecting the outcome of both cases.
The court’s ruling explains that PAGA cases are mainly about resolving issues between the employer and the state of California. The person suing (the plaintiff) is just representing the state’s interests. This means that the concerns of individual plaintiffs are less important than the overall public good. As a result, if one plaintiff settles their case, another plaintiff cannot step in and try to change that settlement, making it easier for employers to settle these cases.
Employers currently involved in PAGA litigation should consult with their legal counsel to understand how this ruling might affect their settlement strategies.
For more information on how this ruling could affect your ongoing or future PAGA litigation, or to gain a better understanding of its implications for your business, please reach out to us at info@mnklawyers.com . We look forward to hearing from you.
