Page 3
Court of Appeal:
PAGA Notice Need Not Define ‘Aggrieved Employees’
Prelitigation Form Need Only Include Non-Frivolous Allegations That Such Workers Exist
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A laborer’s prelitigation notice filed with an employer and the Labor Workforce and Development Agency, as required under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 before initiation of a representative lawsuit, need only include non-frivolous allegations that other aggrieved employees exist without having to identify them, Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal held Tuesday.
The question arose after a plaintiff’s action against her former employers, asserting Labor Code violations on behalf of herself and others, was dismissed on the basis that she failed to provide the statutorily required prefiling notice because the form did not adequately describe who would constitute an “aggrieved employee.”
Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano authored the opinion, reversing the judgment of dismissal by Ventura Superior Court Judge Benjamin F. Coats. Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert and Justice Tari L. Cody joined in the opinion.
Labor Code Violations
Appealing the dismissal was Edelmira Ibarra, who was employed by a farm labor contractor, Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc., from January to July 2021. In September of 2021, Ibarra sent a prelitigation notice to Chuy, the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (“LWDA”), and the growers to which she had been assigned to work—Infinite Herbs, LLC, Baby Root Farms, and G.J. Farms, Inc.
She alleged that Chuy and the growers “failed to maintain adequate staffing levels” and gave Ibarra and other workers “too much work to perform,” resulting in missed, short, late, and interrupted meal and rest periods without premium pay, in violation of the Labor Code.
Ibarra made these and other, allegations “on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees of Employers in the State of California during the last four years.”
In December 2021, she brought the representative lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) against Chuy and the growers on behalf of herself and others.
PAGA Notice
Under PAGA, codified at Labor Code §2698 et seq., “aggrieved employees” are authorized to bring a civil action on behalf of themselves and other employees to recover civil penalties for violations of the statute. The code was enacted with the purpose of expanding the enforcement of labor laws by allowing employees to act as private attorneys general to recover on behalf of themselves and others.
Sec. 2699 provides that an “aggrieved employee” is “any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.”
Sec. 2699.3 requires an employee to give written notice to the LWDA and the employer of the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, “including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” If the LWDA elects not to investigate, or investigates without issuing a citation, the employee may file suit.
Judgment on Pleadings
The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that Ibarra failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by the act before filing the lawsuit. On Dec. 5, 2022, Coats granted the motion on Dec. 5, 2022, finding the prelitigation notice to be deficient, saying:
“[T]here are several distinct interpretations about how to define the term ‘aggrieved employees.’…[T]he aggrieved employees could mean only those individuals that Chuy actually provided to work at [G.J. Farms, Baby Root Farms, and Infinite Herbs]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the aggrieved employees could mean the individuals that Chuy actually provided to work at [G.J. Farms, Baby Root Farms, and Infinite Herbs], plus all other individuals employed independently by each of the three…plus all other individuals Chuy provided to other unnamed growers. From the language of the notice, there is no way to know who or how many employees are ‘aggrieved.’ ”
Coats dismissed the suit and entered judgment in favor of the defendants on Feb. 22, 2023.
Statutory Interpretation
Baltodano noted that “the statute does not specify that ‘aggrieved employees’ be defined in a particular way” and said that case law has established that the act’s prelitigation notice requirement is “minimal.”
He wrote:
“Here, nothing in the plain text of section 2699.3 expressly requires the PAGA plaintiff to define ‘aggrieved employees’ in the prelitigation notice. We decline to read a requirement into the PAGA statute that does not appear therein.”
The justice continued:
“[O]ur view is that section 2699.3 does not impose a heightened requirement of defining aggrieved employees in the prelitigation notice. So long as the PAGA plaintiff provides facts and theories to support that alleged wage and hour violations were committed against them, and includes nonfrivolous allegations that other employees were similarly subjected to such practices, the notice is sufficient.”
Legislative Purpose
Baltodano pointed out that the legislative intent behind PAGA supports the court’s interpretation as the statute was enacted to advance the state’s interest in workplaces free of Labor Code violations and that any obstacles that impede the ability to seek legal remedy undermine this purpose.
He reasoned that “[i]nterpreting section 2699.3 to include an additional requirement to define aggrieved employees would be inconsistent with the purpose of PAGA….”
Turning to the Ibarra’s notice, he declared:
“[W]e conclude Ibarra’s prelitigation notice is sufficient. The notice alleged that four named defendants employed Ibarra from January 2021 through July 2021….Ibarra alleged that all four defendants committed numerous wage and hour violations against her ‘and all other current and former non-exempt employees of Employers in the State of California during the last four years.’ Ibarra also cited section 2810.3, subdivision (b), which provides that a labor contractor, such as Chuy, is jointly liable with a ‘client employer’ for the workers that the contractor supplies. Nothing more was required under section 2699.3, subdivision (a)(1)(A).”
Unambiguous Notice
The defendants argue that because the term “aggrieved employee” is subject to multiple interpretations it is too ambiguous to comply with the prefiling notice requirement.
Unpersuaded, Baltodano said:
“Ibarra’s reference to ‘related or alter-ego company, corporation, partnership, and/or business entity’ does not render the prelitigation notice too ambiguous to comply with section 2699.3….Ibarra, a nonexempt employee of the four named defendants, provided notice of the alleged violations on behalf of herself and ‘all persons who are, were, or will be non-exempt employees of [the four named defendants].’ It is clear from the notice that ‘aggrieved employees’ include other nonexempt workers in California employed by the four named defendants and against whom these defendants committed the alleged violations.”
He added that “[t]o the extent Defendants contend Ibarra cannot bring a PAGA action on behalf of individuals with whom Chuy contracted to work for unnamed client growers or individuals independently employed by the three named client growers, that issue may be fleshed out during discovery.”
The case is Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc., B329899.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company