Quick Hits

• The appellate court confirmed that, under the law as it existed prior to July 2024, a former employee could file PAGA claims even eighteen months after leaving employment, regardless of the one-year PAGA statute of limitations for civil penalties.
• The decision focused on the definition of “aggrieved employee” under the former version of Labor Code Section 2699, emphasizing that standing depended on whether the claimant suffered a Labor Code violation while employed, not on the timing of the claim relative to the statute of limitations.
• The court’s interpretation suggests that, before the 2024 reforms, the timing of the alleged violation was not a barrier to standing, so long as the claimant was employed by the alleged violator and suffered at least one Labor Code violation. However, this interpretation is contradicted by other, recent appellate authority.

In Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., a former employee, Edgar Osuna, brought a lawsuit alleging various Labor Code violations against his former employer, including representative PAGA claims, eighteen months after his employment ended. The trial court dismissed the PAGA claims, finding that Osuna lacked standing because he filed his PAGA notice more than one year after his separation, outside the statute of limitations for civil penalties.

The appellate court reversed, holding that the relevant inquiry under the former California Labor Code Section 2699, which addressed standing under PAGA, was whether Osuna was an “aggrieved employee”—that is, whether he was employed by the alleged violator and suffered one or more Labor Code violations. The court found the statutory language “clear and unambiguous” on this point and noted that the legislature could have imposed a stricter requirement if it had intended to do so.

The court also rejected arguments that only current employees could bring PAGA claims, emphasizing that continued employment was not required for standing. The decision further noted that Osuna alleged ongoing violations, including the employer’s continued failure to pay all wages due, which supported his standing.

Impact of AB 2288 and the 2024 PAGA Reforms

In Osuna, a panel for the Second Appellate District held that a PAGA plaintiff who brings representative claims on behalf of other aggrieved employees does not need to suffer the alleged Labor Code violation within the one-year limitations period to have standing under PAGA. The ruling contradicts the April 2025 holding in Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC.

In Williams, a separate Second Appellate District panel held that “the statute of limitations is tied to the PAGA plaintiff’s individual claims, and that the PAGA plaintiff must bring a PAGA action … within one year of the last Labor Code violation he or she individually suffered.” The court held that a PAGA action must include both an individual claim component and a representative claim component, and timely individual claim is necessary for a PAGA action to proceed (i.e., the individual claim satisfies the statute of limitations).

Thus, these two cases present conflicting interpretations of PAGA standing requirements under the former statutory scheme, with Osuna rejecting the necessity of a violation within the one-year period for standing, and Williams mandating it.

The Osuna decision is also notable in light of recent legislative changes. In July 2024, California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 2288, which amended Section 2699 to require that a PAGA claimant must have “personally suffered” a Labor Code violation within the statute of limitations period. The appellate court in Osuna observed that this amendment was intended to “supersede” the broader standing recognized in prior case law, including the standard recently applied in Williams.

Practical Implications

• The Osuna decision reflects one interpretation of PAGA standing under the law prior to July 2024, holding that former employees could bring PAGA claims even if filed more than a year after separation. However, this view is in direct conflict with the Williams decision, which required that a PAGA plaintiff must have personally suffered a Labor Code violation within the one-year limitations period. As a result, there is a split in authority regarding the proper standard for standing under the pre-2024 statutory scheme.
• The 2024 reforms, specifically AB 2288, now require that PAGA claimants have personally suffered a violation within the statute of limitations, significantly narrowing the pool of potential claimants.
• Employers should be aware that claims filed before the effective date of the 2024 reforms may be subject to differing interpretations of the standing requirements, depending on which appellate authority is followed.

Next Steps

The Second Appellate District’s decision in Osuna underscores the importance of understanding both the historical and current requirements for PAGA standing. Employers may want to carefully review the timing of alleged violations and the employment status of claimants in light of the recent statutory changes. Employers may further want to consider ongoing monitoring of appellate decisions and further legislative developments to ensure compliance with the evolving PAGA landscape.