You are here
Home > Employment >

Supreme Courtroom Holds That PAGA Consultant Waivers Are Enforceable In Sure Vital Respects


On June 15, 2022, the US Supreme Courtroom issued its a lot anticipated resolution in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. The Supreme Courtroom held that California’s rule invalidating pre-dispute agreements waiving the fitting to deliver “consultant” claims underneath the Non-public Attorneys Normal Act of 2004 (PAGA) is partially preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The choice raises some troublesome questions that may must be resolved in future litigation, however it ought to present employers with a robust instrument to restrict PAGA claims.

PAGA and the Concepcion and Iskanian Choices

To grasp the Courtroom’s holding in Viking River Cruises, some background and historical past is critical.

PAGA is a California statute that allows an “aggrieved worker” to sue his or her employer to gather civil penalties on behalf of the state for violations of the California Labor Code for which there would ordinarily be no personal proper of motion. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698, et seq. For many alleged Labor Code violations, PAGA imposes a civil penalty within the quantity of $100 per worker, per pay interval through which the violations happen. Cal. Lab. Code § 2698(f)(2). Of the penalties recovered in a PAGA motion, 25% are awarded to the workers towards whom the violations had been dedicated, and 75% are awarded to the California Labor Workforce and Improvement Company. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i). California courts have interpreted PAGA to allow a single worker who has suffered anyone alleged Labor Code violation to assert penalties for any and all violations that will have been dedicated towards different staff even when they didn’t personally expertise them. Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 23 Cal. App. fifth 745 (2018).

In 2011, the US Supreme Courtroom held that the FAA preempts state legislation guidelines invalidating class motion waivers in arbitration agreements. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). Concepcion concerned a client class motion and held that as a result of class actions’ procedural complexity, inclusion of absent-party claims, and excessive stakes, “[r]equiring the provision of classwide arbitration interferes with elementary attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA.” Id. at 344. Subsequently, courts are required to compel particular person, bilateral arbitration of any claims coated by an arbitration settlement, except the events expressly comply with class or collective proceedings. See Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). The Supreme Courtroom later confirmed that Concepcion’s holding applies to arbitration agreements between employers and staff. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).

Nonetheless, the California Supreme Courtroom held in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), that pre-dispute waivers of an worker’s capacity deliver a “consultant” PAGA motion violate California public coverage and are unenforceable, together with waivers present in in any other case legitimate arbitration agreements. Though PAGA claims resemble class actions in lots of respects, Iskanian held that the rule it established didn’t run afoul of the FAA. The Ninth Circuit subsequently held that Iskanian’s rule is in line with the FAA and Concepcion, albeit on completely different grounds than Iskanian itself. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (ninth Cir. 2015).

Consequently, PAGA litigation exploded as plaintiffs’ attorneys sought to evade the impact of arbitration agreements requiring particular person non-representative proceedings. The difficulty in Viking River Cruises was whether or not Iskanian is preempted by the FAA.

Viking River Cruises’ Holding

Angie Moriana labored for Viking River Cruises as a Gross sales Consultant. She executed an arbitration settlement that required her to arbitrate any dispute she had along with her employer and contained a “Class Motion Waiver” offering that in any arbitral continuing, the events couldn’t deliver any dispute as a category, collective, or consultant PAGA motion. It additionally contained a severability clause specifying that if the waiver was discovered invalid, any class, collective, consultant, or PAGA motion would presumptively be litigated in courtroom. However underneath that severability clause, if any “portion” of the waiver remained legitimate, it could be “enforced in arbitration.”

After her employment ended, Moriana filed a PAGA solely motion in state courtroom alleging that she was not well timed paid her last wages upon separation and a number of other different wage and hour claims predicated on violations skilled by different Viking staff. Viking moved to compel arbitration of Moriana’s “particular person” PAGA declare and to dismiss the opposite PAGA claims. The trial courtroom denied the movement and the California Courtroom of Attraction affirmed, holding that specific waivers of PAGA standing are opposite to state coverage and that PAGA claims can’t be cut up into arbitrable particular person claims and nonarbitrable “consultant” claims.

The Supreme Courtroom reversed and held that Iskanian’s ban on pre-dispute contractual waivers of PAGA “consultant” claims is preempted in some respects, however not others.

The Courtroom famous that California courts confusingly use the time period “consultant” to refer to 2 distinct ideas. On the one hand, a PAGA declare is “consultant” within the sense that the true occasion in curiosity is the state of California, and the employee-plaintiff acts as its agent. However PAGA additionally consists of what the Supreme Courtroom characterised as a “declare joinder” rule allowing a plaintiff to gather civil penalties predicated on violations dedicated towards different staff, and California courts use the time period “consultant” to explain this attribute of the statute as properly.

The Supreme Courtroom held that Iskanian’s rule prohibiting waiver of a “consultant” declare within the first sense is in line with the FAA. The Courtroom held that Concepcion doesn’t stand for the proposition that every one types of proceedings through which one occasion represents one other’s pursuits intrude with the basic attributes of arbitration. Not like a category motion the place one plaintiff can characterize the pursuits of probably 1000’s of people, in a PAGA case there may be solely a single represented occasion: the California Labor Workforce and Improvement Company. This reality, together with different procedural variations between PAGA actions and sophistication actions, led the Courtroom to tell apart Concepcion and maintain that California might require that arbitration or litigation of PAGA claims be “consultant” within the sense that the plaintiff represents the state’s pursuits.

Nonetheless, the Courtroom discovered that Iskanian’s requirement {that a} PAGA plaintiff be permitted to affix alleged Labor Code violations towards different staff is preempted when the process conflicts with the phrases of an arbitration settlement. The Courtroom characterised claims for civil penalties arising from alleged Labor Code violations dedicated towards the plaintiff because the plaintiff’s “particular person PAGA claims” and held that an employer and worker might contractually comply with restrict arbitration to simply these “particular person” claims and exclude “’consultant’ (or maybe quasi-representative) PAGA claims arising out of occasions involving different staff.” The Courtroom rejected the plaintiff’s argument {that a} PAGA motion all the time consists of a single, indivisible declare, discovering as an alternative that Iskanian required “obligatory” “joinder” of claims the events by no means agreed to arbitrate in violation of the FAA.

The Courtroom concluded that the plaintiff’s particular person PAGA claims have to be compelled to arbitration underneath the phrases of the events’ settlement, and that the “consultant” PAGA claims asserting violations towards non-party staff that remained in courtroom have to be dismissed. The holding that the non-individual PAGA claims have to be dismissed was based mostly on the Courtroom’s interpretation of PAGA’s statutory standing rule requiring a PAGA plaintiff to be an “aggrieved worker.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(a). PAGA defines an “aggrieved worker” as “any one that was employed by the alleged violator and towards whom a number of of the alleged violations was dedicated.” Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2699(c). The Supreme Courtroom construed this to imply that “a plaintiff can preserve non-individual PAGA claims in an motion solely by advantage of additionally sustaining a person declare in that motion,” so the Courtroom’s holding all the plaintiff’s particular person PAGA claims had been arbitrable required dismissal of her non-individual claims in courtroom.

What’s Subsequent?

Viking River Cruises is a dense and troublesome resolution that’s sure to generate a lot additional ligation.  One important open subject, recognized by Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, is whether or not California courts will decide that the Supreme Courtroom misconstrued PAGA’s standing requirement, and what is going to grow to be of a plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims in the event that they do and all particular person claims are compelled to arbitration. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence additionally steered that the California legislature might modify PAGA’s statutory standing guidelines even when the Supreme Courtroom interpreted them appropriately. For now, employers ought to be capable to compel arbitration of a PAGA plaintiff’s claims to the extent they come up from alleged Labor Code violations dedicated towards the plaintiff personally, and employers will probably be in a powerful place to argue that this requires dismissal of the remaining PAGA claims in courtroom. Employers ought to evaluate their arbitration agreements to make sure that they require arbitration of staff’ particular person PAGA claims in line with the language and ideas utilized in Viking River Cruises, and that the agreements don’t comprise any language that could possibly be construed as excluding PAGA claims or requiring litigation of particular person PAGA claims within the occasion an entire “consultant waiver” is discovered invalid.

Leave a Reply

Top