Beginning in 2009, Plaintiff Terri Brown filed an original notice of wage and hour violations with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) of alleged Labor Code violations against her employer, Ralphs Grocery Company and its parent company, The Kroger Co., which was one of the conditions of filing a Private Attorneys General Action (PAGA). PAGA provides employees with a private right of action against their employer as a means to collect penalties on behalf of the state’s LWDA. PAGA requires that 75% of any penalties collected be paid to the LWDA, with the other 25% distributed to the aggrieved employees. PAGA also provides for attorney’s fees to the employee who successfully brings the suit. PAGA is subject to a 1-year statute of limitations and it also groups violations into three main categories, with different procedures set for each.
Plaintiff’s claim was that she was not given proper rest and meal breaks during her 8+ hour work shifts as a security guard. Plaintiff Brown then filed a second amended complaint alleging new violations of different Labor Code provisions which had not been specified in her 2009 notice. Defendants moved for judgment against the plaintiff, claiming deficiency in her notice, which was granted by the trial court with leave to amend the notice and complaint.
Then in 2016, Plaintiff Brown amended her notice and filed a third amended complaint. The PAGA court claimed that the third complaint was barred because the 2009 notice was deficient and the 2016 notice and third amended complaint were filed more than 5 years after the expiration of the statue of limitations. The plaintiff claimed that the equitable tolling saved the PAGA claims, but this was rejected by the trial court. (Equitable tolling states that the statue of limitations can not bar a claim if the plaintiff, regardless of reasonable care and diligent efforts, did not discovery the injury until after the statute of limitations has expired.)
The Appeal court concluded that part of the plaintiff’s 2009 notice was adequate and did in fact satisfy the PAGA notice requirements under Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (a). The original decision was reversed, permitting the matter to be remanded for further proceedings.
It is important to have an attorney on your side when it comes to these wage and hour claims. Allow Rupal Law to help you be prepared for every step in winning the claims filed against you by an employee. Allow us to teach you what your legal responsibilities and obligations are as an employer as far as what is permitted and what is not. A consult package with Rupal Law gives you the peace of mind of knowing your legal support and guidance is just a phone call away. Contact us today to learn more and take the first step towards compliance knowledge and avoidance of unexpected legal claims. www.rupallaw.com
