California’s recent PAGA reforms clarified several procedural and standing requirements, but one major issue remains unsettled: whether plaintiffs can pursue “headless” PAGA actions—those representative claims brought allegedly on behalf of other employees, without alleging any individual PAGA violations. This question in the past few years has created confusion and inconsistent outcomes across California courts, especially in pre-reform cases. The California Supreme Court is now poised to potentially resolve the issue in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., expected in early 2026. Employers desiring guidance on this or any employment issues can contact the experienced counsel at MNK Law, APC, by calling 562.362.6437, or emailing us at info@mnklawyers.com.
Employers initially believed the 2024 PAGA reforms had solved the problem by requiring plaintiffs to personally experience at least one Labor Code violation, with further optimism due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Viking River Cruises decision, which recognized separable individual and non-individual PAGA claims and supported enforcing arbitration agreements. But plaintiffs responded by structuring lawsuits to avoid arbitration—dropping individual claims and pursuing representative-only “headless” actions.
Conflicting appellate decisions have since emerged. The Second District’s 2024 Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting decision allowed plaintiffs to proceed with PAGA claims even if they brought no individual claim, reasoning that PAGA standing did not depend on the strength or viability of an individual component. Yet, in Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, the same appellate district held that when a plaintiff loses their individual claims in arbitration, they lose standing to pursue any non-individual PAGA claims.
In 2025, the appellate split deepened. Williams v. Alacrity Solutions reaffirmed that a plaintiff must at least have a timely individual violation to maintain PAGA standing. By contrast, the Fifth District’s Galarsa v. Dolgen California allowed headless claims based on violations affecting only other employees—but emphasized that its holding applied only to pre-2024 PAGA and should not be read to interpret the post-reform statute.
Against this backdrop, the California Supreme Court granted review in Leeper. The plaintiff in Leeper asserted only a representative, non-individual PAGA claim and relied on Balderas to avoid arbitration. But the Second District rejected that approach, holding that Balderas addressed only standing—not the ability to carve out individual claims to evade arbitration—and ordered the individual component to arbitration.
Recent appellate rulings—including Rodriguez, Williams, and Leeper—indicate a shift toward harmonizing judicial interpretation with the Legislature’s intent in the PAGA reforms. That trend suggests the California Supreme Court may ultimately align with the Second District and close the door on pre-reform headless PAGA claims.
Until the Supreme Court’s decision in Leeper, employers will continue to face inconsistent rulings and uncertainty in PAGA litigation strategy. The Court’s ruling will likely determine the future viability of representative-only PAGA actions and the extent to which plaintiffs can avoid arbitration through pleading tactics.
Employer Takeaways
- Employers can remain hopeful for possible elimination of headless PAGA claims: Current judicial trends intrastate and nationwide suggest the Supreme Court may rule that plaintiffs must assert an individual violation to pursue any PAGA claim.
- Arbitration agreements remain critical: If Leeper affirms that individual PAGA claims cannot be carved out, arbitration agreements will regain stronger force post-Viking River.
- Pre-reform vs. post-reform matters: Many 2024–2025 decisions apply only to pre-reform cases; employers must pay attention to the filing date and applicable PAGA version that will govern the case.
- Litigation outcomes remain unpredictable for now: Until the California Supreme Court rules, California courts may continue issuing conflicting decisions.
- Consider reviewing policies and PAGA response strategies: Employers may want to revisit arbitration agreements, recordkeeping, and early-evaluation protocols in light of shifting standing rules.
If you are an employer needing help with an issue relating to employment or business, contact us at MNK Law, APC, by e-mail at info@mnklawyers.com, or by telephone at 562.362.6437.