A California court is grappling with a significant labor dispute involving a prominent ice cream manufacturer accused of violating wage and hour laws. On August 21, 2024, Mario Lara filed a complaint against Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District.
Mario Lara, an hourly employee at Dreyer’s Bakersfield facility earning $24 per hour as a machine operator, brought this action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). He alleges that his employers—Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc., and Froneri US, Inc.—violated multiple provisions of California's Labor Code. Lara's claims are twofold: he seeks remedies for violations committed against himself individually and also acts in a representative capacity on behalf of other employees to enforce their rights under state law.
The crux of the case lies in whether Lara's non-individual claims should be stayed pending arbitration of his individual claims. Initially, Dreyer’s moved to compel arbitration for Lara's individual claims and sought to stay the entire action pending litigation. The trial court ordered arbitration but denied the stay for non-arbitrable claims. Dreyer’s appealed this decision, arguing that staying non-arbitrable claims pending arbitration is mandatory by law.
The appeal has been treated as a petition for an extraordinary writ due to its interlocutory nature. On examining the merits, the court disagreed with Dreyer’s assertion that a stay is mandatory but remanded the case to allow the trial court discretion to decide whether to stay Lara's non-arbitrable claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.
The background context includes several pivotal cases affecting arbitration agreements and PAGA claims. In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014), it was held that waivers preventing employees from bringing representative PAGA claims were unenforceable. However, Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (2022) later concluded that such rules frustrate federal arbitration law by preventing parties from determining which claims are subject to arbitration.
Most recently, Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) held that even if individual PAGA claims are sent to arbitration, plaintiffs retain standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court. This precedent supports Lara's position that his non-individual claims should proceed despite his individual ones being arbitrated.
Lara argues that his non-individual PAGA claims do not fall within the scope of his employment-related disputes covered by the arbitration agreement with Dreyer’s because they seek redress for violations affecting other employees rather than himself alone.
Ultimately, plaintiffs like Lara seek both monetary compensation for themselves and civil penalties on behalf of affected employees under PAGA. They aim for judgments compelling companies like Dreyer’s to adhere strictly to labor laws while ensuring broader workplace protections.
Representing Mario Lara are attorneys Burns J., Jackson P.J., and Simons J., while the defendants' legal team remains unspecified in this document. The case ID is A167881.