{"id":679,"date":"2023-07-20T10:14:37","date_gmt":"2023-07-20T14:14:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=679"},"modified":"2023-07-20T12:16:52","modified_gmt":"2023-07-20T16:16:52","slug":"california-supreme-court-rules-that-so-long-as-they-are-aggrieved-paga-plaintiffs-can-first-pursue-individual-claims-in-arbitration-and-then-can-pursue-non-individual-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/07\/20\/california-supreme-court-rules-that-so-long-as-they-are-aggrieved-paga-plaintiffs-can-first-pursue-individual-claims-in-arbitration-and-then-can-pursue-non-individual-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"California Supreme Court Rules That So Long As They Are Aggrieved, PAGA Plaintiffs Can First Pursue Individual Claims In Arbitration And Then Can Pursue Non-Individual Claims In Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/b>On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision<\/a> in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. S274671 (July 17, 2023), addressing standing requirements under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (\u201cPAGA\u201d).\u00a0 The Supreme Court held that, once a PAGA plaintiff\u2019s individual claims are compelled to arbitration, the plaintiff retains standing to maintain non-individual, representative PAGA claims in court so long as they are an aggrieved employee.\u00a0 If the plaintiff loses in arbitration, they are not aggrieved and therefore lack standing.\u00a0 However, if the plaintiff prevails or settles their individual claims in arbitration, they can then return to court to prosecute their non-individual PAGA claims.\u00a0 For companies facing PAGA claims, the ruling in Adolph is required reading, as it will usher in a new period of workplace litigation in California.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Erik Adolph, an Uber delivery driver, alleged that Uber misclassified him as an independent contractor.\u00a0 Although Adolph initially sought to maintain a class action, those efforts were thwarted by a class action waiver in his workplace arbitration agreement.\u00a0 Adolph then amended his complaint to allege PAGA claims.\u00a0 The trial court denied Uber\u2019s motion to compel arbitration, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on the basis of California\u2019s prior rule, under Iskanian<\/i> v. CLS Transportation, <\/i>59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), that PAGA claims cannot be split into individual and non-individual parts and that a PAGA claim was non-arbitrable.<\/p>\n

Uber filed a Petition for Review and, while it was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana<\/i>, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022), holding that PAGA claims are divisible and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California law insofar as it precluded arbitration of an individual PAGA claim.\u00a0 The U.S. Supreme Court further opined that, once a PAGA plaintiff\u2019s individual claims are compelled to arbitration, they lose standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims.\u00a0 Against this backdrop, the California Supreme Court granted review in Adolph<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The California Supreme Court\u2019s Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court disagreed with Viking River\u2019s<\/i> interpretation of PAGA standing.\u00a0 The California Supreme Court held that, so long as an employee alleges they are aggrieved by a violation, they maintain standing under the PAGA.\u00a0 Thus, even after individual PAGA claims are compelled the arbitration, the plaintiff retains standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court.<\/p>\n

As to logistics, the Supreme Court clarified several things.\u00a0 First, even though individual PAGA claims may be pending in arbitration and non-individual PAGA claims pending in court, the claims all remain one action, and the court action may be stayed pending completion of arbitration.\u00a0 Second, if the plaintiff loses in arbitration, at that juncture, the plaintiff no longer has standing to maintain non-individual PAGA claims.\u00a0 Third, if the plaintiff prevails in arbitration or settles their individual claims, they continue to possess standing to return to court to pursue non-individual PAGA claims on behalf of others.<\/p>\n

Implications for Employers<\/b><\/p>\n

In the wake of Adolph<\/i>, the stakes for employers in individual PAGA arbitrations are high.\u00a0 Employers facing PAGA claims should conduct an early assessment of the plaintiff\u2019s individual claims and if unmeritorious aggressively defend the matter because a win in arbitration will extinguish the case in court as well.\u00a0 We also anticipate that PAGA plaintiffs may begin alleging their aggrieved employee status, yet disclaiming any individual relief, in order to bypass arbitration altogether.\u00a0 It remains to be seen if that pleading strategy will be condoned by California courts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. S274671 (July 17, 2023), addressing standing requirements under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (\u201cPAGA\u201d).\u00a0 The Supreme Court held that, … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “California Supreme Court Rules That So Long As They Are Aggrieved, PAGA Plaintiffs Can First Pursue Individual Claims In Arbitration And Then Can Pursue Non-Individual Claims In Court”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=679"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}