4900 California Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93309
The California Supreme Court’s ruling in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. marks a significant development in the application of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The Court determined that public entities are exempt from PAGA claims, reinforcing that this legislation is intended to address labor code violations primarily within the private sector.
PAGA, enacted in 2004, allows employees to file lawsuits against their employers for labor code violations on behalf of themselves and other affected employees, effectively acting as private attorneys general. This has been a powerful tool for employees to enforce labor laws, often resulting in substantial settlements and promoting compliance.
In Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., the plaintiff, who was employed by both Lyft (a private company) and a public entity, sought to bring a PAGA claim against Lyft. The case brought into question whether public entities could be classified as “employers” under PAGA, which would subject them to such claims.
The California Supreme Court ruled that public entities are not subject to PAGA claims, emphasizing that the Act was designed to address labor issues in the private sector. The Court’s interpretation of the term “employer” under California wage orders and the Labor Code supported this conclusion, noting that the definition of “person” in these orders typically applies to private employers and does not extend to public entities.
This decision aligns with previous rulings that public entities are often exempt from certain labor laws that apply to private employers. The Court highlighted the legislative intent to limit PAGA’s reach to the private sector, which is crucial to avoid overburdening public resources with litigation designed primarily for private industry regulation.
The ruling provides clarity for public employers, confirming that they are shielded from the significant penalties associated with PAGA claims. It also underscores the need for private employers to continue stringent compliance with California labor laws, as PAGA remains a potent mechanism for enforcement within the private sector. Additionally, it draws attention to the complexities that arise when employees hold concurrent roles in both public and private sectors, highlighting the importance of understanding the distinct legal frameworks applicable to each.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. is a pivotal ruling that defines the boundaries of PAGA’s applicability, exempting public entities from its reach. This outcome will likely serve as a key precedent in future cases involving public employment and PAGA litigation, reinforcing the Act’s focus on regulating private-sector labor practices.
As California continues to navigate the complexities of labor law enforcement, this decision provides essential guidance on the limitations and applications of PAGA, ensuring that its original intent remains intact while protecting public entities from unintended legal exposure.
(Centralize HR, 2024)
