Contributors

Geoff West

Associate

The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (“PAGA”) has long served as a formidable vehicle for employee-plaintiffs to pursue civil penalties for Labor Code violations on a representative basis. However, California courts have recently placed renewed focus on the standing requirements for PAGA claims—particularly in cases where the named plaintiff does not pursue his individual PAGA claims. This emerging judicial doctrine is colloquially referred to as “Headless PAGA.”

Defining “Headless PAGA”

A “Headless PAGA” claim arises when a plaintiff brings a representative action under PAGA only for penalties associated with violations against other aggrieved employees and not for their own individual PAGA claim.

In mid-April 2025, the California Supreme Court has taken Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., a 2024 case, up on appeal in order to resolve a split in authority regarding the availability of headless PAGA claims.

What led to the rise of “Headless PAGA”

An employee may pursue a headless PAGA claim for the personal satisfaction or injunctive relief (available after the recent 2024 PAGA amendments). More often, a “headless” PAGA claim is pursued to try to avoid arbitration and efficient resolution of Plaintiff’s standing issues. If the plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim is bifurcated and sent to arbitration, it will be resolved first and the rest of the class wide discovery may be stayed in the interim. If the plaintiff does not win in arbitration, the remaining representative PAGA claim may not be able to proceed. Recent court decisions have shaped the doctrine and led to the rise of headless PAGA claims.

Judicial authority and doctrinal evolution

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana found that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a portion of the California Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, which held arbitration provisions waiving an employee’s right to bring PAGA claims were unenforceable. Viking River allowed arbitration of the individual portion of PAGA claims, leaving plaintiffs to find other means by which to avoid arbitration, including attempting to bring claims on a representative-only basis.

Until now, the California Supreme Court has not directly addressed the standing issue resulting from this situation. In 2023, it did address an adjacent issue in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., holding that arbitration of an individual claim under PAGA does not strip a plaintiff of standing to pursue representative PAGA claims in court. Crucially, however, the Court clarified that if the arbitrator finds the individual claim fails on the merits (i.e., the plaintiff is not an “aggrieved employee”), the plaintiff loses standing to prosecute the PAGA claims on behalf of others. Thus, a “Headless PAGA” action in which no individual violation is proven, cannot proceed in court.

Split in judicial authority

The California Court of Appeal has recently decided several cases resulting in a split in authority between the Second District and Fourth District.

In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2024) the California Court of Appeals for the Second District held that a PAGA claim cannot be headless because by statute, every PAGA claim includes both an individual and representative Claim, and standing to bring a representative PAGA claim is premised on the plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim. In Leeper, the Court held that the plain language of the statute requires a PAGA action to be “brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees[,]” putting an end of “headless PAGA” actions use to circumvent mandatory arbitration. (emphasis added).

This followed an earlier 2024 decision, Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. from the same district which held that employees can meet the standing requirement of PAGA without having to file an individual PAGA claim. Though Balderas did not involve an arbitration agreement.

The Second District’s most recent decision in Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC, published on April 22, 2025, holds that PAGA plaintiffs “must, among other things, seek to recover civil penalties on [their] own behalf … and must establish that [their] so-called ‘individual claim’ is timely as to at least one Labor Code violation.” Now that the 2024 PAGA Amendments are in effect, the “at least one” violation rule will change to require the employee to have suffered the same violation, under the amended rules.

On the other hand, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc. (2025) rejected the holding in Leeper, finding that an individual claim cannot be implied where it is not plead. In Rodriguez, the plaintiff did not bring an individual PAGA claim, and thus the trial court was found to have properly denied a motion to compel arbitration because there was no arbitrable claim to compel (i.e., no individual PAGA claim). Whether the plaintiff lacked standing by not also alleging an individual PAGA claim was a distinct question, not addressed by the decision.

The Cal. Supreme Court last week decided to take up review of the Leeper decision, despite neither party appealing the decision, in order to resolve the split of authority between the Second District and Fourth District appellate courts. Interestingly, the Court denied a plaintiff’s side law firm’s request to de-publish the Leeper decision pending its review.

The California Supreme Court has granted review of Leeper to answer two questions:

1. Does every PAGA action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims?
2. Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?

As previously noted, Leeper held that a plaintiff could not bring a headless PAGA claim, while Rodriguez simply avoided the question. These decisions must be reconciled.

Strategic implications for legal practitioners

Defense perspective:

Early motion practice and arbitration agreements can be used to isolate and challenge the plaintiff’s individual claim.

Prevailing on the individual claim in arbitration may serve as a dispositive defense to the representative action, allowing for dismissal of the entire PAGA suit.

Employers may seek to bifurcate proceedings to resolve the plaintiff’s standing before engaging in costly representative discovery and litigation.

Plaintiff’s perspective:

It is now critical for PAGA plaintiffs to substantiate their individual Labor Code claims early.

A failed individual claim, even if procedurally segregated, may eviscerate the broader representative claim—rendering the PAGA case “headless.”

Looking ahead

The “Headless PAGA” doctrine reinforces constitutional and statutory standing principles in the context of California employment litigation. As courts continue to refine the contours of representative standing under PAGA, this doctrine will play an important role in the strategic calculus of employment class and representative actions.