California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows employees to sue on behalf of themselves and others for Labor Code violations. In 2024, hard-fought reforms tightened standing requirements, requiring plaintiffs to show at least one Labor Code violation within the past year. Despite these changes, courts still face disputes over non-individual PAGA claims – representative actions brought without an accompanying individual claim. 

Non-individual PAGA claims arise when plaintiffs either dismiss or resolve their individual claims through arbitration but continue to pursue actions solely on behalf of other employees. This approach gained traction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Viking River Cruises decision, which permitted arbitration of individual PAGA claims yet left unresolved questions regarding the treatment of representative—or non-individual—claims. In response, plaintiffs began filing these non-individual PAGA claims as a means of sidesteping arbitration, leading to divergent rulings among California courts. 

Numerous conflicting court decisions have created uncertainty regarding the viability of non-individual PAGA claims. Some courts have allowed representative claims to proceed even when plaintiffs have dismissed or arbitrated their individual claims, reasoning that standing does not depend on maintaining an individual claim. Conversely, other courts have determined that once an individual claim is resolved through arbitration, any related representative action must also be dismissed.  

More recent decisions have reinforced the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate at least one timely Labor Code violation to pursue a PAGA claim, while certain rulings have permitted non-individual representative claims only for cases initiated before the 2024 reforms.  

While the status of these cases remains unsettled, a resolution is expected when the California Supreme Court addresses the issue in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. in early 2026. Many observers anticipate that the Court will favor legislative reforms, likely requiring plaintiffs to maintain an individual claim in order to be able to move forward with representative actions, offering hope for greater clarity and reduced litigation risk for employers.