The Ruling Is Consistent With Other California Cases Denying Efforts To Split PAGA Cause Of Action.
YourMechanic sought to compel plaintiff to arbitrate whether he was an "aggrieved employee" before he could proceed under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The trial court denied the motion, and YourMechanic appealed. Jonathan Provost v. YourMechanic, Inc., D076569 (4/1 10/15/20) (Benke, Aaron, Dato).
As Justice Benke explains, "requiring Provost to arbitrate whether he was an 'aggrieved employee' with standing to bring a representative PAGA action would require splitting that single action into two components: an arbitrable 'individual' claim (i.e., whether he was an independent contractor or employee under either the parties' written arbitration provision or section 226.8 . . . making it unlawful to willfully misclassify an individual as an independent contractor); and a nonarbitrable representative claim."
As a case subheading summarizes, "Case Law Prohibits the Splitting of a Single Representative PAGA Action into 'Individual' Arbitrable and Representative Nonarbitrable Components in Deciding whether an Individual Has Standing under PAGA.'
But that doesn't keep employers from continuing to try to split PAGA claims, and arbitrate first whether the plaintiff is an "aggrieved employee." The employer's logic is that if the employer could get an arbitration award holding that the plaintiff is an independent contractor rather than an employee, then the plaintiff would not have standing to adjudicate the PAGA claim, since only an employee would have a PAGA claim. Thus far, this strategy has not worked, because the plaintiff brings a claim on behalf of him or herself, and as a representative, and prevailing California law does not require the plaintiff to split the individual and representative claims and arbitrate the individual claims first.
Comments