U.S. Supreme Court,
Labor/Employment,
California Supreme Court
Mar. 10, 2016
Doubts about PAGA passing muster
It is time for the courts to squarely address whether PAGA passes muster under the separation of powers doctrine, and the answer should be "no."
Steven B. Katz
Partner
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
1800 Century Park E Fl 6
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 597-4553
Email: skatz@constangy.com
USC Law School
Steven B. Katz is a partner and co-chair of the Appellate Practice Group at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP. He represents employers in class, collective and representative actions, and appeals.
In Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles Inc., 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1155 (2015), the California Supreme Court held for the first time that a suit under the Private Attorneys General Act, "is ... a type of qui tam action." Doing so raises a constitutional question that has not yet been addressed by the courts: Does PAGA meet the minimum standards necessary for qui tam statutes to pass muster under the separation of powers doctrine? The answer is no
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In