California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) has long been a lifeline for workers seeking to hold employers accountable for Labor Code violations. By deputizing employees to stand in the shoes of the state, PAGA allows workers to enforce labor laws not just for themselves, but on behalf of all aggrieved employees.
But recently, courts have been grappling with a strategy known as the “headless” PAGA claim — where the individual plaintiff proceeds only with the representative (non-individual) aspect of PAGA, dropping or disclaiming their individual claim. This tactic can be critical for employees who want to avoid arbitration agreements that might force their individual claim out of court.
Several California appellate courts have weighed in, and a split has now developed, with the California Supreme Court set to resolve the issue. Here's what workers and their advocates need to know.
Table of Contents
- What Is a “Headless” PAGA Claim?
- Recent Court Decisions on Headless PAGA Actions
- Why Courts Are Divided
- How Arbitration and PAGA Interact
- Impact of the July 2024 PAGA Amendments
- What This Means for Employers and Employees
What Is a “Headless” PAGA Claim?
Under PAGA (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq.), an aggrieved employee may recover civil penalties for themselves and other current or former employees.
In a typical PAGA action, there are two parts:
- Individual PAGA claim – PAGA lawsuit based on violations the plaintiff personally suffered.
- Representative PAGA claim – brought on behalf of other employees affected by the same violations.
A “headless” PAGA claim is what happens when the plaintiff drops the individual component and pursues only the representative portion.
Why Employees Might Choose a Headless Strategy
- To Avoid Arbitration: Many employees sign arbitration agreements that can force their individual PAGA claims out of court. By dropping the individual claim, plaintiffs can try to keep the representative claim in civil court.
- To Simplify Litigation: Removing the individual component may streamline the case and focus entirely on systemic violations affecting a larger group of workers.
Recent Court Decisions on Headless PAGA Actions
The courts have not spoken with one voice — and that's where things get interesting.
| Case | What the Court Said | Why It Matters for Workers |
|---|---|---|
|
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2nd Dist. Ct. App.) |
Held that every PAGA case must include both an individual and representative claim. Plaintiffs cannot simply drop the individual part to avoid arbitration. |
A blow to workers relying on headless strategy. Under this ruling, if the individual claim is compelled to arbitration, the representative claim may fall with it. |
|
Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (2nd Dist. Ct. App.) |
Confirmed Leeper 's approach and added that representative claims can be barred if the individual claim is untimely. |
Reinforces that timeliness of the individual claim is key to keeping the representative claim alive. |
|
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (Sanchez) (5th Dist. Ct. App.) |
Allowed headless PAGA actions to proceed — at least for claims arising before July 1, 2024 (when PAGA was amended). |
A major win for employees in that appellate district, letting them continue representing coworkers even if their individual claim is arbitrated or dismissed. |
|
California Supreme Court Review |
The Supreme Court has granted review in Leeper , signaling that it will clarify whether headless PAGA claims are valid statewide. |
The outcome could determine whether employees can continue using this strategy in the future. |
Why Courts Are Divided
The heart of the debate is how to interpret PAGA's language, which authorizes suits “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.”
- Narrow Reading (Leeper): “And” means the plaintiff must have a live individual claim. No headless actions.
- Broad Reading (CRST): The law's purpose is enforcement, so representative claims should survive even if the individual piece is gone.
Employee advocates argue that allowing headless claims is essential to keep employers accountable. If companies can force every worker's individual claim into arbitration and then knock out the representative claim, systemic violations may never see the light of day.
How Arbitration and PAGA Interact
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (2022) held that individual PAGA claims are arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act — but it also suggested that representative claims might still proceed in court.
After Viking River, employers have used arbitration clauses as a tool to split PAGA cases in two. Workers' lawyers began using headless PAGA claims to keep at least the group claim in court. The appellate decisions discussed above are the first big tests of whether that approach will hold up.
Impact of the July 2024 PAGA Amendments
California's recent PAGA reform, effective July 1, 2024, added new procedural safeguards and opportunities for employers to “cure” violations. But the reform didn't squarely address headless claims, leaving courts to sort out how the new law interacts with this strategy.
For now, whether a headless claim survives may depend on:
- The appellate district where the case is filed
- Whether the claim arose before or after July 2024
- Whether the individual claim is timely and properly noticed
What This Means for Employers and Employees
The legal landscape for PAGA litigation is shifting quickly — and the stakes are high for workers seeking justice.
For employees and their advocates, these cases highlight the importance of carefully drafting PAGA claims and preserving individual standing whenever possible. Even if your strategy is to focus on systemic issues, keeping the individual component alive may be critical to surviving employer challenges. Filing timely notice with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and meeting all procedural requirements will be essential.
For employers, these decisions are a reminder that arbitration agreements are powerful tools — but not a guaranteed escape from PAGA exposure. Companies should review their agreements for enforceability, audit wage-and-hour practices, and take PAGA notices seriously to mitigate risk before claims escalate.
Both sides are now looking to the California Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in Leeper v. Shipt, which could either shut the door on headless claims entirely or affirm employees' ability to bring them statewide. Until then, workers should partner with experienced paga attorneys to develop strategies that maximize their chance of holding law-breaking employers accountable.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment