Id. at 1924-25.The Supreme Court invoked the severability clause in the parties’ agreement, whichrequired “any ‘portion’ of the [representative action] waiver that remains valid” to “be‘enforced in arbitration.’” Id. at 1925. Based on that clause, the Supreme Courtdetermined that “Viking was entitled to enforce the agreement insofar as it mandatedarbitration of [the plaintiff’s] individual PAGA claim.” Id.As for the remaining “non-individual” PAGA claims (i.e., violations allegedly committedagainst other aggrieved employees), the Supreme Court held that those claims had tobe dismissed because plaintiff, having had her own PAGA dispute “pared away” fromthe court action, “lack[ed] statutory standing to continue to maintain her non-individualclaims in court.” Id.B.Viking River Cruises’ Aftermath And Adolph, et al. v. UberPost Viking River Cruises, employers have been pursuing petitions to compel arbitrationof individual PAGA claims and requesting dismissal of representative PAGA claims forlack of standing. While California courts have been granting the former requests, themajority of courts have denied the latter requests for dismissal on the ground that theU.S. Supreme Court might have erred in its analysis of PAGA standing, an issue ofstate law.16© Duane Morris LLP 2023PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
24
27
