Takeaway: California's Private Attorneys General Act does not violate the state's separation of powers doctrine and is therefore constitutional.
A California appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a lobbying group for small and midsize businesses that claimed the state's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) violates the California Constitution.
PAGA allows California employees to sue their employers and pursue civil penalties on behalf of the state for violations relating not only to themselves, but also to other California employees of the same employer.
The lobbying group, the California Business & Industrial Alliance (CBIA), claimed that PAGA violates California's separation of powers doctrine by allowing private citizens to seek civil penalties on the state's behalf without the executive branch exercising sufficient prosecutorial discretion.
The appeals court rejected that theory for two reasons: First, in 2014, the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, held in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (59 Cal.4th 348) that PAGA does not violate the principle of separation of powers under the California Constitution.
Second, even if Iskanian were not controlling, the appeals court said it would still rule that PAGA does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because various provisions of PAGA itself give the executive branch notice of, and discretion to exercise control over, PAGA claims.
PAGA's History and Structure...
; ; ; agreed to pay $17.07 million to settle federal allegations of illegal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices on Friday, marking the Justice Department's first resolution unde...