In a win for employers, a California court affirmed the dismissal of a “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) case because the plaintiff filed the case outside the one-year statute of limitations (Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (B335445, April 22, 2025).
In January 2022, plaintiff Corbin Williams’ employment with defendant Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC ended. Over a year later, in March 2023, he notified California’s Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) that he intended to pursue a PAGA action against Alacrity before filing a civil lawsuit alleging a PAGA claim on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees.
In response, Alacrity asked the trial court to dismiss the case because, among other reasons, it was filed more than one year after Williams’ employment ended (i.e., more than one year after the last alleged Labor Code violation suffered by Williams), which was past the statute of limitations for PAGA claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed the PAGA action, and Williams appealed.
On appeal, Williams conceded that his individual PAGA claim was no longer valid because it exceeded the statute of limitations, but he argued that was irrelevant — he was alleging only representative claims on behalf of other aggrieved employees, which were within the one-year statute of limitations.
The Second District Court of Appeal rejected his argument and in doing so, rejected Williams’ attempt to resurrect his time-barred PAGA action through a representative — or headless — PAGA action.
The court held that the statute of limitations for a PAGA action is tied to a PAGA plaintiff’s individual claim, not to a plaintiff’s representative claim. In other words, a PAGA plaintiff must bring a PAGA action within one year of the last Labor Code violation the plaintiff personally suffered — not within one year of a violation suffered by any of the aggrieved employees covered by the lawsuit.
The court’s decision was based on its conclusion that a PAGA action must always contain both an individual PAGA claim and a representative claim — as the Second District previously held in Leeper v. Shipt.
The court also concluded that tying the statute of limitations to a PAGA plaintiff’s individual claim (as opposed to the representative claim) was most consistent with the California Legislature’s intent that workplace violations “be addressed expeditiously.” Removing the requirement that a plaintiff file a timely individual claim could result in a PAGA plaintiff filing a PAGA action “10, 20 or 30 years” after the plaintiff’s employment ended and after Labor Code violations continued for years without being “remediated or deterred.”
Since Williams’ employment ended more than one year prior to his filing the PAGA action, it was past the statute of limitations, and the court affirmed the case’s dismissal.
Remember, in 2024, PAGA was significantly reformed. As amended, PAGA now explicitly requires that a PAGA plaintiff personally suffer each alleged violation within the one-year statute of limitations. Although this case was filed prior to these PAGA reforms, the court’s holding that the statute of limitations is based on the PAGA plaintiff’s individual claim is consistent with the current state of the law.
Although this case is another example of a court rejecting the use of a headless PAGA action, the California Courts of Appeal are currently split on whether plaintiffs can pursue headless PAGA actions. The California Supreme Court has ordered review of this issue in the Leeper case so a definitive answer will be forthcoming.
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.
