In Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed that a plaintiff bringing a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) must personally suffer a Labor Code violation to have standing. 

Corbin Williams worked as an adjuster for Alacrity Solutions Group for approximately one week in 2019. He brought a PAGA-only lawsuit alleging that Alacrity failed to pay overtime and wage statement violations, on behalf of the State of California and other current and former employees in the one year prior to his PAGA notice – but critically, not on his own behalf. Alacrity demurred to the complaint, arguing that Williams arguing (1) his PAGA action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and (2) he lacked standing to assert a PAGA action. 

The trial court agreed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the statute of limitations is tied to the PAGA plaintiff’s individual claims, and that the PAGA plaintiff must bring a PAGA action by serving notice on the Labor Agency within one year of the last Labor Code violation he or she individually suffered. The court emphasized that under Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. 1, PAGA standing is limited to “aggrieved employees” those who have suffered at least one Labor Code violation. Because Williams failed to allege at least one timely “individual claim,” he lacked standing to proceed with a PAGA action, and the trial court properly sustained the demurrer. 

This case serves as a reminder that employers facing PAGA claims should examine not only whether a violation occurred, but also whether the named plaintiff actually experienced it during the requisite period. Lack of standing may be a viable threshold defense.