Client Alerts & Insights
California Supreme Court Decides That Individual Settlements Do Not Bar Pursuing Related PAGA Claims
March 13, 2020
Authored By:
On March 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court in Kim v. Reins International California Inc. determined that an individual employee who released his individual claims nonetheless retained standing to pursue his claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). The decision reversed summary judgment in favor of Reins International that held that the individual lacked standing to pursue the PAGA claim after settling his individual claims.
The California Supreme Court found that the individual was still aggrieved under PAGA and thus retained standing to pursue PAGA claims. The high court found that the definition of aggrieved employee covered “any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” The court continued that the definition did not “require the employee to claim that any economic injury resulted from the alleged violations” and indicated “that PAGA standing is not inextricably linked to the plaintiff’s own injury.” Therefore, an individual settlement that makes the plaintiff whole does not remove the individual from the definition of an aggrieved employee.
Procedurally, Reins International successfully forced all non-PAGA claims brought by the former employee to arbitration through an arbitration agreement. Reins International then leveraged the arbitration proceeding to obtain the settlement of the individual claims. The California Supreme Court opined that Reins International presented the employee with a “Hobson’s choice” to accept a statutory offer of settlement (i.e., an offer of judgment) that would have shifted costs to the employee if he was unable to obtain a judgment at arbitration more favorable than the settlement offer. The court stated that it was “hardly fair play” for Reins International to use the offer of judgment to leverage a settlement that allowed it to escape PAGA liability.
Thus, in this decision, the California Supreme Court reflects hostility towards the procedural advantages of (1) arbitration agreements, (2) offers of judgment, and (3) settlement agreements.
With other states considering PAGA-like statutes (see our prior analysis here), the effects of this decision could be far-reaching. If you have any questions, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Adam Primm at 216.363.4451 or aprimm@beneschlaw.com.
W. Eric Baisden at 216.363.4676 or ebaisden@beneschlaw.com; or
Latest News
CMS Puts Specialists in the Game with LEAD
For years, many specialist physicians have watched Medicare’s ACO programs from the sidelines, uncertain how to participate in models historically centered on primary care providers. The Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (LEAD) Model marks a fundamental shift in this dynamic.
CMS Bets on the Long Game with 10‑Year LEAD ACO Model
The Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (LEAD) Model is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s (Innovation Center) next-generation accountable care initiative, created to succeed the ACO REACH model in 2027.
Raising the Bar: Ohio Moves to Increase Tort Damages Caps for the First Time in Two Decades
The General Assembly is making progress on a pair of bills that would increase Ohio’s statutory caps on noneconomic damages in tort cases. House Bill 447 (“H.B. 447”) and its counterpart, Senate Bill 292 (“S.B. 292”), were introduced in September and October 2025, respectively.
Grand Theft Cargo: Practical Ways Freight Brokers Can Avoid Cyber-Enabled Cargo Theft
Cargo theft is not a new phenomenon, but in recent years it has evolved into an increasingly sophisticated, often international enterprise aimed at surreptitiously taking possession of another’s freight through calculated fraud and deception.