The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that ride-hail drivers bringing claims under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lack standing to intervene in a separate case that reached a settlement. The decision came in a PAGA Deal Drivers Trial involving Tina Turrieta, who filed a claim in 2018 alleging that Lyft misclassified drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. PAGA enables workers to sue on behalf of themselves, the state, and other workers for labor law violations.
PAGA Deal Drivers Trial :Background and Settlement
Turrieta reached a $15 million settlement with Lyft in 2019. However, two drivers, Brandon Olson and Million Seifu, behind separate PAGA actions, attempted to intervene to block the settlement. A California court of appeal ruled in 2021 that Olson and Seifu did not have standing to intervene. Olson petitioned the California Supreme Court, and Seifu filed an application for relief.
Supreme Court’s Decision
On Thursday, the state justices agreed with the appellate court, ruling against Olson and Seifu’s standing to intervene. Justice Martin J. Jenkins, writing for the majority, stated that the authority Olson was seeking would contradict PAGA’s intent.
