In Arias v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ruled that employees cannot bring "representative actions" against employers for unfair competition unless they satisfy all of the onerous procedural requirements for class action lawsuits.  However, the Court also ruled these procedures do not apply to actions initiated under the State's Private Attorneys General Act.

In the Arias case, the Supreme Court confirmed what employers have believed since Proposition 64 was passed:  An employee seeking to bring a "representative action" for unfair competition must satisfy all of the various procedural requirements for class action lawsuits.  However, since Proposition 64 had no impact on the state's Private Attorneys General Act, the Court found this act does not require a plaintiff to satisfy the onerous requirements for a class action.

Still, the Private Attorneys General Act has its own set of procedural hurdles.  First, an "aggrieved employee" must give a written notice to both the employer and the state's Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  This notice must describe facts and theories supporting an alleged violation of the Labor Code.  The employee may sue only if the agency gives notice that it does not intend to investigate, or if it fails to respond within 33 days.  If the agency decides to investigate, the employee may sue only if the agency decides not to issue a citation, or fails to do so within 158 days.
 
Even if the employee sues and prevails, the state gets 75 percent of all civil penalties collected; the "aggrieved employees" must share the remaining 25 percent.  Perhaps because of these procedural hurdles and the limited relief available, we have not seen a large number of suits under the Private Attorneys General Act.  It remains to be seen whether the Arias decision encourages more claims under this law.

Meanwhile, the Unfair Competition Law remains a popular weapon for plaintiffs' lawyers to use against employers for wage-hour claims and other Labor Code violations.