At Clarkson, we believe workers should always have a voice. This month, our team secured another important appellate court win that protects the rights of employees across California.
On September 9, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District issued its decision in Galarsa v. Dolgen, rejecting Dollar General’s attempt to weaken California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The case tackled two big questions:
- Can workers bring a PAGA case just on behalf of their co-workers, even if they don’t include claims for themselves?
- Can employers force questions about whether a worker is allowed to bring a PAGA case into private arbitration instead of letting a court decide?
The court sided with workers on both fronts, marking another step forward in the fight for fair treatment in California workplaces.
What is PAGA and Why It Matters
PAGA is a California law that lets workers step into the shoes of the state to hold employers accountable when they break labor laws. Instead of waiting for government agencies to investigate, workers can file a lawsuit “on behalf of” the state and their coworkers.
This law has been a game-changer in protecting employees from unpaid wages, unsafe conditions, and other violations. But, for years, big companies have tried to chip away at PAGA by arguing that:
- Workers can’t file cases unless they’re also suing for their own personal violations
- Arbitration agreements (the fine print many employees sign without realizing it) block workers from pursuing PAGA claims in court
The Court’s Decision in Galarsa
In this case, Clarkson represented Tricia Galarsa, a former Dollar General employee who wanted to bring a PAGA claim solely on behalf of her co-workers.
Dollar General argued this wasn’t allowed. The Court disagreed. It confirmed that “headless” PAGA claims – cases brought only on behalf of other employees – are valid under the law. This means workers don’t lose the power to enforce labor rights just because their own claims are resolved or no longer part of the case.
The Court also tackled the arbitration issue. Dollar General wanted an arbitrator (a private decision-maker, often seen as more employer-friendly) to decide whether Ms. Galarsa had standing to bring the case. But the Court ruled that standing is a question between the State of California and the employer – not something that can be forced into private arbitration.
This matters because if companies could push these questions into arbitration, it could shut down many PAGA cases before they ever reached a courtroom.
Why This Win Matters for Workers
This victory protects workers in three big ways:
- Stronger enforcement. Even if a worker doesn’t include their own claims, they can still stand up for their co-workers and make sure labor laws are enforced.
- Fewer loopholes. Employers can’t hide behind arbitration agreements to avoid responsibility under PAGA.
- A fairer playing field. The decision ensures that workers – and the State of California – get their day in court when companies break the law.
Clarkson’s Role
Clarkson attorneys Glenn Danas and Brent Robinson represented Ms. Galarsa on appeal, alongside her trial counsel Matthew Bainer of The Bainer Law Firm. Together, they secured a decision that not only benefits their client but also advances the law for all California employees.
The arguments tested in Galarsa are also central to Clarkson’s work in Leeper v. Shipt, a PAGA case currently pending before the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Leeper could resolve lingering questions about PAGA’s scope statewide.
If you or someone you know has faced workplace violations, reach out to us. Clarkson is here to make sure workers’ voices are heard and that employers play by the rules.
The case is Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC, Case Nos. F089004 and F089171, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District.
