Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2023 - Report - Page 16
Id. at 1924-25.
The Supreme Court invoked the severability clause in the parties’ agreement, which
required “any ‘portion’ of the [representative action] waiver that remains valid” to “be
‘enforced in arbitration.’” Id. at 1925. Based on that clause, the Supreme Court
determined that “Viking was entitled to enforce the agreement insofar as it mandated
arbitration of [the plaintiff’s] individual PAGA claim.” Id.
As for the remaining “non-individual” PAGA claims (i.e., violations allegedly committed
against other aggrieved employees), the Supreme Court held that those claims had to
be dismissed because plaintiff, having had her own PAGA dispute “pared away” from
the court action, “lack[ed] statutory standing to continue to maintain her non-individual
claims in court.” Id.
B.
Viking River Cruises’ Aftermath And Adolph, et al. v. Uber
Post Viking River Cruises, employers have been pursuing petitions to compel arbitration
of individual PAGA claims and requesting dismissal of representative PAGA claims for
lack of standing. While California courts have been granting the former requests, the
majority of courts have denied the latter requests for dismissal on the ground that the
U.S. Supreme Court might have erred in its analysis of PAGA standing, an issue of
state law.
16
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
