Recently, several California Courts of Appeal have issued conflicting decisions involving the use of “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions — those actions that only allege representative, or non-individual, PAGA claims and therefore cannot be ordered to arbitration. After previously ordering the review of one “headless” PAGA case, the California Supreme Court has now added a second case review.
Remember, back in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Viking River Cruises said that an employee’s individual PAGA claims could be separated from their representative PAGA claims and compelled to arbitration. Then, in 2023, the California Supreme Court ruled in Adolph v. Uber that PAGA plaintiffs could continue to pursue their representative claims in court after their individual claims were ordered to arbitration. This led some PAGA plaintiffs — attempting to avoid arbitration entirely — to file PAGA actions that purported to include only representative claims that wouldn’t be subject to arbitration.
To increase confusion, the Courts of Appeal have issued conflicting decisions on “headless” PAGA cases, and now the California Supreme Court has ordered the review of two such cases.
First, in April, the California Supreme Court ordered review of Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.to answer the following questions:
- Does every PAGA action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims?
- Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?
Now, on May 14, 2025, the California Supreme Court granted review in Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services LTD., LLC. Although agreeing to review the case, the court also held that the any action in this case will be deferred pending “consideration and disposition of related issues” in Leeper v. Shipt or pending further order of the court.
In both cases, the California Supreme Court has denied requests for depublication of the lower court’s decision, which means those decisions continue to create a split among the Courts of Appeal on whether headless PAGA actions are permissible.
Erika Barbara, Senior Employment Law Counsel, CalChamber
CalChamber members can read more about Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Claims in the HR Library. Not a member? Learn how to power your business with a CalChamber membership.
