California Court Clarifies PAGA Standing Requirements: No “Headless” Actions Permitted Under Pre-2024 Law
On April 22, 2025, California’s Second District Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (No. B335445), affirming the dismissal of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim brought solely on behalf of other employees when the plaintiff’s own claim was time-barred. The court held that under the version of PAGA in effect before the July 1, 2024 PAGA amendments, a plaintiff must assert a timely “individual” claim to maintain standing as a PAGA representative.
Background
Corbin Williams, a former employee of Alacrity Solutions Group, filed a PAGA-only lawsuit more than one year after his employment ended—outside the applicable statute of limitations for Labor Code violations. He sought to recover penalties on behalf of other aggrieved employees but not himself, having already submitted his individual claims to arbitration.
The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, and the appellate court affirmed. The decision turned on the requirement that a PAGA plaintiff must have a timely individual claim in order to proceed, effectively rejecting so-called “headless” PAGA actions (those pursued solely on behalf of others).
Key Takeaways for Employers
- The court reaffirmed that a PAGA action must include a claim based on the plaintiff’s own timely Labor Code violation.
- Simply alleging violations on behalf of other employees is insufficient if the plaintiff’s individual claim is time-barred.
- The decision aligns with recent precedent (Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1008–10 (2024), rev. granted Feb. 18, 2025 (to be a PAGA plaintiff (under the statutes in effect prior to July 1, 2024), a private individual must, among other things, seek to recover civil penalties on his own behalf for that violation)), and may influence how courts interpret standing under PAGA until the July 2024 amendments took effect.
What This Means for Employers
This ruling provides clarity—and a potential defense—for employers facing PAGA claims brought by former employees. Employers should closely scrutinize whether the named plaintiff can assert a timely individual claim under the applicable statute of limitations.
While the PAGA landscape shifted significantly after the July 1, 2024 legislative amendments, this case highlights the continued importance of monitoring procedural defenses, especially in cases filed under the pre-amendment framework.
If you have any questions about the matters discussed in this issue of Compliance Matters, please call your firm contact at (818) 508-3700 or visit us online at www.brgslaw.com .
Sincerely,