Scott L. Tillett

Pine Tillett • Sherman Oaks


In 2021, Scott Tillett wrote the appellate brief that led to the important employment decision holding that California's Private Attorneys General Act covers public as well as private employers. The brief was sufficient for the court to decide the case without oral argument. Sargent v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 61 Cal.App.5th 658 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., March 5, 2021).


Except the Sargent decision only permitted PAGA damages against public entities for violations of statutes that specified penalties, such as the OSHA violations in that case. But for violations of statutes that don't set out their own penalties, the court ruled public employers are not subject to PAGA's default damages listed in Labor Code Section 2669(f).


On June 4, Tillett argued to the state Supreme Court why that view of PAGA is wrong. Stone v. Alameda Health System, S279137 (Cal., filed March 2, 2023).


His basic thrust was there are two portions of PAGA that specify special treatment of certain public entities. "Why would they exclude one public entity on the face of the statute if the statute didn't apply to any public entities?" Tillett asked.


Labor Code Section 2699(3) says there can be no PAGA civil penalties for failures by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which itself oversees PAGA. Another Labor Code section says any sorts of penalties assessed against police or fire departments should go into a special workers' compensation fund. Except that section specifically does not apply to PAGA penalties.


Given those, "of course the [PAGA] statute has to be applicable against all other public entities," he said. "It can't be that [the default] subsection (f) penalties don't apply against any public entity because that would render [those sections] ... surplusage."


"It's a small part of PAGA because it's only PAGA vis-a-vis public employers," Tillett said. "But think about how many public employees there are in the state of California."


More recently, Tillett basically won a hard-fought case merely by filing a brief at the Court of Appeal. "It settled after we filed the respondent's brief," he said. "In other words, they read what we wrote and said, oh Lord, we have a problem."


The plaintiff was a part-time college professor whose caseload over several years qualified him to be full time and tenured. Stymied by the college at every turn, he eventually sued for whistleblower retaliation and won $2 million plus about $450,000 in fees and costs. Miller v. Desert Community College District, E080623 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., filed Feb. 2, 2023).


In an appeal the year before, Tillett preserved a $58 million award, including a whopping $50 million in punitive damages for sexual battery and harassment. Khan v. David, B305849 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., May 27, 2022).


The award is one of several harassment judgments against British-Greek billionaire Alkiviades David. Tillett said this case was "the most egregious sexual harassment case that I've ever seen ever, bar none."