Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2023 - Report - Page 23
was lawful because its workers were relieved of duty and paid wages during the meal
period. Id. at *19. The court of appeal disagreed. It opined that employers must afford
employees uninterrupted half-hour periods in which they are relieved of any duty or
employer control and are free to come and go as they please, and if an employer does
not provide an employee with a compliant meal period, then the employer must provide
the employee with premium pay for the violation. Id. at *20. The defendants’ fallback
argument that the amount of premium pay awarded by the trial court should be offset by
the regular wages it paid to workers during their meal periods was also rejected. The
court of appeal reasoned that premium pay is awarded for the non-economic injuries
suffered by workers due to deprivation of a compliant meal period, rather than
compensating employees for time worked. Id. at *23. Turning to the trial court’s
dismissal of the representative PAGA meal period claim due to unmanageability, the
court of appeal addressed the question of whether the PAGA has a manageability
requirement similar to class actions. Id. at *28. Recognizing that federal district courts
disagree as to whether claims under the PAGA can be struck based on manageability
concerns, the court of appeal stated that a representative action under the PAGA is not
a class action, but rather an administrative law enforcement action where the legislative
purpose is to augment the limited enforcement capability of the Labor Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA) by empowering employees to enforce the Labor Code as
representatives of the Agency. Id. at *32. The civil penalties recovered in a PAGA action
are recovered on the state's behalf and are intended to remediate present violations and
deter future ones, not to redress employees' injuries. Id. at *33. The court of appeal
determined that allowing courts to dismiss PAGA claims based on manageability
concerns would interfere with the PAGA's express design as a law enforcement
mechanism, and create an extra hurdle that does not apply to LWDA enforcement
actions. Id. at *34-35. The court of appeal therefore reversed the trial court’s ruling
dismissing the PAGA claims as unmanageable. Id. at *37.
California courts, however, in appropriate circumstances will deny class certification
based on lack of class-wide proof or problems with the plaintiff’s own claims. A prime
example is Concho, et al. v. Sky Billiards, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 29304 (Cal. Super.
Ct. May 2, 2022). The plaintiffs, a group of hourly employees of a home furniture store,
brought a class action complaint on behalf of all California non-exempt employees
alleging failure to provide meal and rest periods, and failure to properly reimburse for
business expenses. Id. at *1. The defendant asserted that the named plaintiff was not a
credible witness based on discrepancies between her declaration and deposition
testimony. Recognizing that a plaintiff may not be an adequate class representative if he
or she has serious credibility issues, the trial court agreed with the defendant, finding
that although the named plaintiff’s declaration claimed her and other putative class
members had to use their personal phones due to the limited phones at the warehouse,
this was contradicted by deposition testimony that the plaintiff had a computer and
phone at her desk, in addition to a radio unit to communicate with supervisors (among
other serious discrepancies). Id. at *3. The trial court found it problematic that the
plaintiff did not argue that the written policies, on their face, disclosed violations; rather
the plaintiff argued that the implementation of the policies was unlawful, and the
plaintiff's declaration was the sole evidence regarding those allegedly illegal practices.
23
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
