Las acciones PAGA “sin cabeza” obtienen luz verde en CRST acelerado, pero la Corte Suprema de California está lista para intervenir

In a July 2025 decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District ruled that so-called “headless PAGA” lawsuits are allowed—actions in which a plaintiff drops their own Labor Code claims but continues to pursue penalties on behalf of other employees under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This holding, in CRST Expedited v. Superior Court, intensifies an existing split among California appellate courts and sets up a definitive ruling by the California Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

Here are five things California employers should know about this growing legal divide and its implications:

1. What Is a “Headless” PAGA Case?

A “headless PAGA” case refers to a situation where a PAGA plaintiff disclaims or dismisses their individual claims—typically to avoid arbitration pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate all employment issues—and instead continues only with representative claims on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees. These plaintiffs argue that they may proceed solely as proxies for the State of California to enforce the Labor Code, even if they no longer pursue any relief for themselves.

This procedural strategy aims to bypass arbitration agreements that contain a class action waiver and require the plaintiff to arbitrate their individual claims prior to being a representative in a PAGA case.  These arbitration agreements have been upheld by the US Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. 

2. CRST Expedited v. Superior Court: The Fifth District Approves Headless PAGA Claims

In CRST Expedited, the plaintiff initially asserted both individual and representative PAGA claims. After the court compelled the individual portion to arbitration, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed those claims and proceeded in court with the representative portion alone—thus rendering the case “headless.”

The employer argued this stripped the plaintiff of standing. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the statutory phrase allowing an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action “on behalf of himself or herself and other employees” was ambiguous. The court reasoned that the word “may” is permissive, and to promote PAGA’s core purpose of Labor Code enforcement, the word “and” could reasonably be read as “and/or.”

In short: the Fifth District held that plaintiffs may bring representative PAGA claims even after discarding their own, at least under the version of PAGA in effect before the July 1, 2024 amendments.

3. Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.: The Second District Says “No” to Headless PAGA

In a prior case, the Second District Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., holding that every PAGA action inherently includes both individual and non-individual claims. According to Leeper, a plaintiff cannot surgically remove their own claim to avoid arbitration and still retain standing to prosecute claims on behalf of others.

The court emphasized that under the ordinary reading of the statute, the phrase “on behalf of himself or herself and other employees” requires inclusion of both types of claims. It argued that allowing purely representative (headless) actions rewrites the statute and undermines legislative intent.

4. The California Supreme Court Will Decide: Leeper Now Under Review

On April 16, 2025, the California Supreme Court granted review in Leeper, even though neither party petitioned for it. This rare move reflects the urgency and importance of resolving this issue, which is also been addressed in Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, which is also under review pending Leeper.

The Court has asked the parties to address two key questions:

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

Employers across California should closely watch for this decision, which could significantly reshape how PAGA claims are structured and litigated.

5. Key Takeaways and Employer Action Items

While the legal landscape remains uncertain, California employers should:

  • Review arbitration agreements carefully. Language and structure still matter—and may determine how courts handle bifurcated claims.
  • Proactively audit wage-and-hour practices. The best defense to PAGA claims remains full compliance and routine audits and training to potentially cap PAGA penalties at 15%. Learn more about how employers can reduce their liability by routine audits in our prior article here.
  • Track the Leeper and CRST developments closely.
  • Consider the cost of delay and dual-forum litigation.
  • Consult experienced employment counsel to tailor strategies to this shifting environment.

Final Thoughts

The CRST Expedited ruling and the issue of headless PAGA cases will impact California’s PAGA landscape. With the California Supreme Court set to resolve the issue in Leeper, now is the time for employers to audit their arbitration agreements, examine potential PAGA exposure, and stay informed.

Need help reviewing your policies or responding to a PAGA notice? Our team is actively helping clients defend PAGA claims as well as advising on proactive steps to mitigate PAGA exposure. 

The post “Headless” PAGA Actions Get Green Light in CRST Expedited—But the California Supreme Court Is Poised to Step In appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

In a July 2025 decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District ruled that so-called “headless PAGA” lawsuits are allowed—actions in which a plaintiff drops their own Labor Code claims but continues to pursue penalties on behalf of other employees under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This holding, in CRST Expedited v. Superior Court, intensifies an existing split among California appellate courts and sets up a definitive ruling by the California Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

Here are five things California employers should know about this growing legal divide and its implications:

1. What Is a “Headless” PAGA Case?

A “headless PAGA” case refers to a situation where a PAGA plaintiff disclaims or dismisses their individual claims—typically to avoid arbitration pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate all employment issues—and instead continues only with representative claims on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees. These plaintiffs argue that they may proceed solely as proxies for the State of California to enforce the Labor Code, even if they no longer pursue any relief for themselves.

This procedural strategy aims to bypass arbitration agreements that contain a class action waiver and require the plaintiff to arbitrate their individual claims prior to being a representative in a PAGA case.  These arbitration agreements have been upheld by the US Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. 

2. CRST Expedited v. Superior Court: The Fifth District Approves Headless PAGA Claims

In CRST Expedited, the plaintiff initially asserted both individual and representative PAGA claims. After the court compelled the individual portion to arbitration, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed those claims and proceeded in court with the representative portion alone—thus rendering the case “headless.”

The employer argued this stripped the plaintiff of standing. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the statutory phrase allowing an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action “on behalf of himself or herself and other employees” was ambiguous. The court reasoned that the word “may” is permissive, and to promote PAGA’s core purpose of Labor Code enforcement, the word “and” could reasonably be read as “and/or.”

In short: the Fifth District held that plaintiffs may bring representative PAGA claims even after discarding their own, at least under the version of PAGA in effect before the July 1, 2024 amendments.

3. Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.: The Second District Says “No” to Headless PAGA

In a prior case, the Second District Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., holding that every PAGA action inherently includes both individual and non-individual claims. According to Leeper, a plaintiff cannot surgically remove their own claim to avoid arbitration and still retain standing to prosecute claims on behalf of others.

The court emphasized that under the ordinary reading of the statute, the phrase “on behalf of himself or herself and other employees” requires inclusion of both types of claims. It argued that allowing purely representative (headless) actions rewrites the statute and undermines legislative intent.

4. The California Supreme Court Will Decide: Leeper Now Under Review

On April 16, 2025, the California Supreme Court granted review in Leeper, even though neither party petitioned for it. This rare move reflects the urgency and importance of resolving this issue, which is also been addressed in Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, which is also under review pending Leeper.

The Court has asked the parties to address two key questions:

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

Employers across California should closely watch for this decision, which could significantly reshape how PAGA claims are structured and litigated.

5. Key Takeaways and Employer Action Items

While the legal landscape remains uncertain, California employers should:

  • Review arbitration agreements carefully. Language and structure still matter—and may determine how courts handle bifurcated claims.
  • Proactively audit wage-and-hour practices. The best defense to PAGA claims remains full compliance and routine audits and training to potentially cap PAGA penalties at 15%. Learn more about how employers can reduce their liability by routine audits in our prior article here.
  • Track the Leeper and CRST developments closely.
  • Consider the cost of delay and dual-forum litigation.
  • Consult experienced employment counsel to tailor strategies to this shifting environment.

Final Thoughts

The CRST Expedited ruling and the issue of headless PAGA cases will impact California’s PAGA landscape. With the California Supreme Court set to resolve the issue in Leeper, now is the time for employers to audit their arbitration agreements, examine potential PAGA exposure, and stay informed.

Need help reviewing your policies or responding to a PAGA notice? Our team is actively helping clients defend PAGA claims as well as advising on proactive steps to mitigate PAGA exposure. 

The post “Headless” PAGA Actions Get Green Light in CRST Expedited—But the California Supreme Court Is Poised to Step In appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

En una decisión de julio de 2025, la Corte de Apelaciones del Quinto Distrito de California dictaminó que las denominadas demandas “PAGA sin cabeza” están permitidas: acciones en las que un demandante retira sus propias reclamaciones bajo el Código Laboral pero continúa buscando sanciones en nombre de otros empleados bajo la Ley de Abogados Generales Privados (PAGA). Esta decisión, en CRST Expedited v. Superior Court, intensifica una división existente entre las cortes de apelaciones de California y prepara el terreno para un fallo definitivo de la Corte Suprema de California en Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

Aquí hay cinco cosas que los empleadores de California deben saber sobre esta creciente división legal y sus implicaciones:

1. ¿Qué es un caso PAGA “sin cabeza”?

Un caso PAGA “sin cabeza” se refiere a una situación donde un demandante bajo PAGA renuncia o descarta sus reclamaciones individuales—generalmente para evitar el arbitraje según un acuerdo que requiere arbitrar todas las cuestiones laborales—y continúa únicamente con reclamaciones representativas en nombre de otros empleados presuntamente agraviados. Estos demandantes argumentan que pueden proceder exclusivamente como representantes del Estado de California para hacer cumplir el Código Laboral, incluso si ya no buscan ningún alivio para sí mismos.

Esta estrategia procesal busca eludir acuerdos de arbitraje que contienen una renuncia a acciones colectivas y requieren que el demandante arbitre sus reclamaciones individuales antes de ser representante en un caso PAGA. Estos acuerdos de arbitraje han sido ratificados por la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. en Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

2. CRST Expedited v. Superior Court: El Quinto Distrito Aprueba las Reclamaciones PAGA sin Cabeza

En CRST Expedited, el demandante inicialmente presentó tanto reclamaciones individuales como representativas bajo PAGA. Después de que la corte ordenó arbitrar la parte individual, el demandante voluntariamente desestimó esas reclamaciones y procedió en la corte solo con la parte representativa, dejando así el caso “sin cabeza”.

El empleador argumentó que esto despojaba al demandante de legitimación. Sin embargo, la corte de apelaciones no estuvo de acuerdo, encontrando que la frase estatutaria que permite a un empleado agraviado presentar una acción civil “en nombre propio y de otros empleados” era ambigua. La corte razonó que la palabra “may” es permisiva, y para promover el propósito central de PAGA de hacer cumplir el Código Laboral, la palabra “and” podría razonablemente interpretarse como “y/o”.

En resumen: el Quinto Distrito sostuvo que los demandantes pueden presentar reclamaciones representativas bajo PAGA incluso después de descartar las propias, al menos bajo la versión de PAGA vigente antes de las enmiendas del 1 de julio de 2024.

3. Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.: El Segundo Distrito Dice “No” a las PAGA sin Cabeza

En un caso anterior, la Corte de Apelaciones del Segundo Distrito llegó a la conclusión opuesta en Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., sosteniendo que toda acción PAGA incluye inherentemente reclamaciones individuales y no individuales. Según Leeper, un demandante no puede eliminar quirúrgicamente su propia reclamación para evitar el arbitraje y seguir manteniendo la legitimación para procesar reclamaciones en nombre de otros.

La corte enfatizó que, bajo una lectura ordinaria del estatuto, la frase “en nombre propio y de otros empleados” requiere la inclusión de ambos tipos de reclamaciones. Argumentó que permitir acciones puramente representativas (sin cabeza) reescribe el estatuto y socava la intención legislativa.

4. La Corte Suprema de California Decidirá: Leeper Bajo Revisión

El 16 de abril de 2025, la Corte Suprema de California aceptó revisar Leeper, a pesar de que ninguna de las partes lo solicitó. Este movimiento inusual refleja la urgencia e importancia de resolver esta cuestión, que también se está abordando en Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, caso que está pendiente de resolución mientras se decide Leeper.

La Corte ha solicitado a las partes abordar dos preguntas clave:

  1. ¿Incluye necesariamente toda acción PAGA reclamaciones individuales y no individuales, independientemente de si la demanda las alega expresamente?
  2. ¿Puede un demandante optar por presentar solo una acción PAGA no individual?

Los empleadores de todo California deben seguir de cerca esta decisión, que podría transformar significativamente cómo se estructuran y litigan las reclamaciones PAGA.

5. Puntos Clave y Acciones Recomendadas para los Empleadores

Mientras el panorama legal sigue siendo incierto, los empleadores de California deberían:

  • Revisar cuidadosamente los acuerdos de arbitraje. La redacción y estructura siguen siendo importantes y pueden determinar cómo los tribunales manejan reclamaciones bifurcadas.
  • Auditar proactivamente las prácticas de salario y horario. La mejor defensa contra las reclamaciones PAGA sigue siendo el cumplimiento total y auditorías y capacitaciones rutinarias para reducir potencialmente las sanciones PAGA al 15%. Obtén más información sobre cómo los empleadores pueden reducir su responsabilidad con auditorías rutinarias en nuestro artículo anterior aquí.
  • Seguir de cerca los desarrollos de Leeper y CRST.
  • Considerar el costo de la demora y la litigación en foros duales.
  • Consultar con abogados especializados en derecho laboral para adaptar estrategias a este entorno cambiante.

Reflexiones Finales

La decisión en CRST Expedited y el tema de los casos PAGA sin cabeza impactarán el panorama de PAGA en California. Con la Corte Suprema de California lista para resolver la cuestión en Leeper, es el momento para que los empleadores auditen sus acuerdos de arbitraje, examinen la posible exposición a PAGA y se mantengan informados.

¿Necesitas ayuda para revisar tus políticas o responder a una notificación PAGA? Nuestro equipo está ayudando activamente a clientes a defenderse de reclamaciones PAGA, así como asesorando sobre pasos proactivos para mitigar la exposición a PAGA.

El artículo “Acciones PAGA Sin Cabeza Reciben Luz Verde en CRST Expedited — Pero la Corte Suprema de California Está Lista para Intervenir” apareció primero en California Employment Law Report.

Share:

More Posts

Send Us A Message

Scroll to Top