In a significant decision for California labor law, the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal has ruled that workers can pursue "headless" claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) solely on behalf of other aggrieved employees, even after dismissing their individual claims. The case, CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2025), clarifies the scope of PAGA and reinforces its role as a unique enforcement mechanism for labor code violations.
Background
Espiridon Sanchez, a former tire maintenance technician, filed a lawsuit in September 2019 against CRST Expedited, Inc., doing business as Transportation Solution Inc., and its predecessor, Gardner Trucking Inc. Sanchez alleged multiple labor code violations, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid overtime wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and untimely payment of wages upon termination. The lawsuit was brought under PAGA, which allows aggrieved employees to act as representatives of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to recover civil penalties for labor code violations.
In March 2019, Sanchez’s attorney sent a notice to the LWDA, as required by PAGA, outlining nine types of labor code violations experienced by nonexempt employees. After the LWDA did not respond within the 65-day statutory period, Sanchez was authorized to pursue a civil action as the state’s representative. In May 2023, the trial court granted CRST’s motion to compel arbitration of Sanchez’s individual PAGA claims but initially dismissed his nonindividual claims. However, following the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023), the trial court reinstated the nonindividual claims. CRST then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Sanchez lacked standing to pursue nonindividual claims after dismissing his individual claims. The trial court denied this motion, prompting CRST’s petition for a writ of mandate.
Appellate Court’s Ruling
In a unanimous 51-page opinion written by Justice Donald R. Franson Jr., the Fifth Appellate District rejected CRST’s petition, affirming that PAGA allows "headless" actions—claims brought solely on behalf of other employees without pursuing individual claims. The court’s analysis hinged on the interpretation of Section 2699 of the Labor Code, particularly the phrase allowing an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.”
Key Points of the Ruling
Ambiguity in Statutory Language
The court found the word “and” in Section 2699 to be ambiguous. While CRST argued that “and” conjunctively requires an employee to pursue both individual and nonindividual claims together, Sanchez contended that the permissive nature of “may” in the statute allows flexibility. The court agreed with Sanchez, citing historical precedent that “and” can sometimes be read disjunctively as “or” to align with legislative intent (People v. Pool, 1865).
Legislative Intent and PAGA’s Purpose
PAGA was enacted in 2003 to address inadequate enforcement of labor code provisions due to limited government resources. The court emphasized that PAGA empowers employees to act as proxies for the state, recovering civil penalties (75% to the LWDA, 25% to aggrieved employees) to deter violations. Allowing headless PAGA actions aligns with this purpose by ensuring robust enforcement without requiring individual claims to be litigated first.
Impact of Viking River and Adolph
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana held that individual PAGA claims are arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but nonindividual claims may remain in court. The California Supreme Court’s Adolph decision clarified that an employee retains standing to pursue nonindividual claims in court even after individual claims are sent to arbitration. The CRST court built on Adolph, rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s suggestion in Viking River that nonindividual claims should be dismissed, and affirming that headless actions are permissible.
Practical Implications
The court noted that bifurcating PAGA claims (individual claims to arbitration, nonindividual to court) creates delays and procedural hurdles that undermine PAGA’s enforcement goals. Headless actions avoid these delays, allowing faster prosecution of claims affecting larger groups of employees. The court dismissed CRST’s argument that headless actions enable “gamesmanship” by plaintiffs’ attorneys, emphasizing that such actions still serve the public interest by enforcing labor laws.
Broader Implications
The CRST decision strengthens employees’ ability to enforce California’s labor laws through PAGA, particularly in cases where arbitration agreements might otherwise limit their claims. By allowing headless actions, the court ensures that employees can act as effective representatives of the state without being forced to pursue individual claims that may be subject to arbitration. This ruling also highlights the tension between federal arbitration policies and California’s labor enforcement framework, a conflict that continues to evolve post-Viking River.
The decision aligns with other California appellate rulings, such as Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) and Seifu v. Lyft, Inc. (2023), which similarly upheld standing for nonindividual PAGA claims. However, the issue remains unsettled, as the California Supreme Court is set to address the same question in Leeper v. Shipt Inc. (2025). The outcome of Leeper could provide further clarity on headless PAGA actions.
Conclusion
The CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County ruling is a victory for workers seeking to enforce labor code violations on behalf of others. By interpreting PAGA’s language flexibly and prioritizing its enforcement objectives, the Fifth Appellate District has reinforced the statute’s role as a powerful tool for addressing workplace violations. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this decision underscores the importance of balancing arbitration agreements with the public policy goals of labor law enforcement.
PAGA does not typically cover public employees due to exemptions for public entities under most Labor Code provisions. (see, Stone v. Alameda Health System (2023).) However, the CRST decision indirectly benefits public employees by reinforcing labor law enforcement standards, which can influence public-sector policies on wages, overtime, and working conditions. PAGA decisions encourage public employers to conform with Labor Code standards to avoid grievances or alternative litigation under the FLSA or other laws. High-profile PAGA cases can raise awareness of workplace rights, empowering public safety unions to advocate for better protections.
