On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.
In early July, Moriana, the named plaintiff-employee at the center of Viking
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.
However, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Viking River Cruises also seemingly included
In December 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (Viking). The question presented in Viking is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) has been in the news lately with a proposed state Proposition seeking to reform it, and the Supreme Court taking up a case regarding PAGA and arbitrations. Though recent developments give hope to employers that some limitations will be placed on PAGA claims, the filing of PAGA
While California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is often compared to class actions, many of the rules and regulations governing class actions are not present. And applying considerations like manageability to PAGA claims has caused California trial courts much consternation.
However, recently the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District has provided some
In a significant victory for California employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a $102 million award against Walmart in a suit alleging that the retailer violated the California Labor Code’s wage statement and meal-break provisions. The decision is Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., May 28, 2021, No. 19-16184.
The
2020 presented a myriad of challenges for California employers, including the constant march of California court opinions regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.
The California courts focused on two issues involving PAGA this year: