California Appeals Court: Employer's Arbitration Win Bars Employee's Representative PAGA Claim
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources. How we report.
TL;DR
- California Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration win for the employer precludes an employee from bringing a representative PAGA claim.
- Case involved Alexander Sorokunov suing NetApp, Inc. for alleged Labor Code violations.
- The court found that an arbitration finding of no violations means the employee is no longer an 'aggrieved employee' under PAGA.
- This decision reinforces the use of arbitration agreements as a strategy for California employers to limit PAGA liability.
Overview
On March 3, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed that an employee whose individual Labor Code claims are resolved against them in arbitration lacks standing to pursue representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) based on those same alleged violations. The decision came in the case of Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc.
What Happened
Alexander Sorokunov, a former NetApp employee, alleged Labor Code violations related to compensation and pursued both individual claims and representative claims under PAGA.
The trial court compelled arbitration of Sorokunov's individual claims but allowed the PAGA claim to proceed separately. After Sorokunov lost in arbitration on the individual claims, the trial court confirmed the arbitrator's finding and dismissed the PAGA claim, reasoning that he was not an 'aggrieved employee.'
On appeal, the court upheld the decision, finding issue preclusion applied: since the arbitrator found no Labor Code violations had been committed against Sorokunov, he could not represent others on those claims under PAGA.
The appellate court rejected arguments that PAGA claims cannot be precluded due to their representative nature or policy concerns, emphasizing the employee's loss only affected their own standing, not the state's or other employees' rights.
Context
PAGA allows employees to step into the shoes of state regulators to seek penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves and other employees. However, standing under PAGA requires the individual to be an 'aggrieved employee' who has suffered at least one alleged violation.
This decision follows a line of cases reinforcing that an employee's loss in individual arbitration can bar their ability to pursue representative PAGA claims, based on preclusion principles.
Why It Matters
- The court's decision provides clear guidance that arbitration victories for employers on individual claims can foreclose representative PAGA actions by the same employee on the same facts.
- Employers in California may increasingly use arbitration to address both individual and representative exposure in Labor Code litigation.