Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. United States, Inc.
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 502
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Huff, a former Securitas security guard, sued under PAGA alleging multiple Labor Code violations affecting him and other employees (including §§ 201, 202, 201.3, 204).
- The trial was phased; first phase tried a 20-employee sample to decide whether temporary-employee weekly-pay rules (Lab. Code § 201.3(b)(1)) and exemptions (§ 201.3(b)(6)) were violated and penalty amounts.
- After Huff presented his case, defendant Securitas moved for judgment; the trial court entered judgment for Securitas, finding Huff was not a temporary employee and thus not aggrieved as to the § 201.3 claim.
- Huff moved for a new trial; the court granted it, reasoning that under PAGA an "aggrieved employee" (one affected by at least one alleged violation) may pursue penalties for other violations affecting other employees.
- Securitas appealed the grant of a new trial, arguing Huff lacked standing to pursue penalties for violations that did not personally affect him and that some asserted violations were waived or meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PAGA plaintiff who was aggrieved by at least one Labor Code violation may recover penalties for other, different violations suffered by other employees | Huff: An "aggrieved employee" (one affected by "one or more" alleged violations) may bring representative PAGA claims for all violations an employer committed | Securitas: PAGA allows representative recovery only for the same Labor Code provision(s) that affected the plaintiff personally | Held: PAGA permits an aggrieved employee (affected by at least one alleged violation) to pursue penalties for other Labor Code violations committed by the same employer; affirmed new trial |
| Whether legislative history limits PAGA representative recovery to only violations that personally injured the plaintiff | Huff: The statute's plain text controls; legislative history does not negate the statute's definition of "aggrieved employee" | Securitas: Sponsors' statements show intent to limit suits to harms actually suffered by plaintiffs | Held: Court applies plain language; legislative history cannot override enacted statutory text and supports broad deputization policy |
| Whether section 2699(f) (penalty calculation) and (i) (distribution) are incompatible with the court's reading of "aggrieved employee" | Huff: Statutory penalty calculation and distribution can be harmonized with the definition; statute contemplates plaintiff incentives and judicial discretion | Securitas: Using the § 2699(c) definition overcounts employees for penalties and lets plaintiffs share penalties for violations they did not suffer | Held: Provisions are harmonizable; trial court and statutory discretion address unfairness; interpretation stands |
| Whether Huff waived or failed to plead/notify claims (e.g., §§ 201/202 final-pay claim) such that new trial is improper | Huff: The operative complaint alleged failure to timely pay final wages; the claim was reserved for later trial phases | Securitas: Claim was raised after trial or inadequately noticed; removal from assignment is not termination as a matter of law | Held: Final-pay claim was pleaded; issue was not decided in phase one and remains for retrial; waiver/notice arguments premature on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (recognizing PAGA as a qui tam–style deputization to enforce Labor Code penalties)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (discussing enforcement gap and legislative purpose of PAGA)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756 v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (interpreting "aggrieved employee" requirement; employee must have been employed by alleged violator)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (distinguishing class-action typicality/standing from PAGA representative enforcement)
- Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1436 (distinguished: traditional standing for individual statutory-protection claims does not control qui tam/PAGA actions)