In a significant ruling last week, California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal confirmed that employees may pursue “headless” claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)—representative actions brought solely on behalf of other aggrieved workers—even after their own individual claims have been dismissed. The case, CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2025), confirms a broader interpretation of PAGA, further increasing the need for employers to maintain strict labor code compliance. Employers seeking guidance regarding PAGA claims or any other matters of employment regulation compliance should contact the experienced attorneys at MNK Law, APC, via e-mail at info@mnklawyers.com or by telephone at 562.362.6437.
Case
Espiridon Sanchez filed a PAGA action in September 2019 against his employer, CRST Expedited, Inc., alleging labor code violations. PAGA allows employees to step into the shoes of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to seek civil penalties for alleged violations. In May 2023, the trial court granted CRST’s motion to compel arbitration of Sanchez’s individual claims and initially dismissed his nonindividual claims. However, after the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023), which clarified that employees compelled to arbitration could still pursue representative PAGA claims, the trial court reinstated Sanchez’s representative claims.
In its recent decision, the Fifth Appellate District denied CRST’s subsequent petition for mandate, affirming that PAGA permits so-called “headless” actions—cases where an employee, even without active individual claims, can continue to represent others. The ruling turned on the interpretation of California Labor Code Section 2699, particularly the clause allowing a civil action “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.” The court deemed the word “and” in this provision ambiguous and concluded it should not be read to require that individual and representative claims both be pursued simultaneously.
This ruling builds on the California Supreme Court’s findings in Adolph, rejecting the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022), which found that once an employee’s individual claims are sent to arbitration, their representative PAGA claims should be dismissed. California courts, however, continue to affirm that representative PAGA actions can proceed independently.
Implications for Employers
The CRST decision reinforces employees’ ability to bring PAGA claims—even when they are bound by arbitration agreements for their individual claims. The decision is therefore a reminder for Employers to review their labor practices, wage and hour compliance, and arbitration agreements, to mitigate the risk of PAGA litigation.
Representative PAGA actions remain a significant liability concern for employers across the state. Any employers desiring further guidance regarding PAGA or labor regulations should contact the experienced counsel at MNK Law, at 562.362.6437, or info@mnklawyers.com.
