Yesterday, the California Supreme Court docket, in Adolph v. Uber Applied sciences, Inc., addressed the US Supreme Court docket’s resolution in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022). The much-anticipated Adolph resolution, addresses the query of whether or not an “aggrieved worker,” who has been compelled to arbitrate particular person PAGA claims (i.e. Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in a person capability), loses standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims (i.e. Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by different staff) in courtroom.
The California Supreme Court docket held, opposite to Viking River, {that a} plaintiff, who’s an aggrieved worker, maintains statutory standing to pursue non-individual claims in courtroom, even when the plaintiff’s particular person claims have been compelled to arbitration. Viking River held {that a} plaintiff loses standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in courtroom as soon as their particular person claims have been compelled to arbitration. Nonetheless, Justice Sotomayor warned in her concurring opinion that “if this Court docket’s understanding of state legislation is improper, California courts, in an acceptable case, could have the final phrase.” The Adolph courtroom agreed, stating that it isn’t sure by the US Supreme Court docket’s resolution, as “[t]he highest courtroom of every State . . . stays ‘the ultimate arbiter of what’s state legislation.’”
In Adolph, the California Supreme Court docket defined that PAGA solely imposes two necessities for standing: 1) that the plaintiff should allege they have been employed by the alleged violator; and a couple of) that the plaintiff should allege they’re somebody towards whom a number of Labor Code violations was dedicated. If these two necessities are met, then the plaintiff is an “aggrieved worker,” who has standing to pursue PAGA claims. The Court docket elaborated that “[a]rbitrating a PAGA plaintiff’s particular person declare doesn’t nullify the actual fact of the violation or extinguish the plaintiff’s standing as an aggrieved worker.”
Whereas Adolph initially appears to be a blow to California employers, there are some silver linings. First, the Court docket said that the arbitrator’s resolution as as to if plaintiff is an “aggrieved worker” can be binding on the trial courtroom. So, if the arbitrator decides that plaintiff is an “aggrieved worker,” then plaintiff would proceed to have standing to pursue non-individual claims in courtroom. Nonetheless, if the arbitrator decides plaintiff just isn’t an “aggrieved worker,” then plaintiff would lose standing to pursue non-individual claims in courtroom. The Court docket didn’t deal with what occurs if a case is dismissed from arbitration and not using a discovering as as to if or not plaintiff is an “aggrieved worker,” which stays an open query.
Second, the Court docket held that when the person claims are compelled to arbitration, they aren’t severed from the non-individual claims. Thus, the claims in arbitration and in courtroom are nonetheless one continuing. Whereas California Code of Civil Process part 1281.4 provides the trial courtroom discretion to remain proceedings pending the result of arbitration, the truth that each the arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims represent one continuing means that the non-individual claims should be stayed pending the result of the person claims in arbitration. Moreover, if the plaintiff’s standing is in the end decided by the arbitrator’s resolution, then the person claims should essentially be determined earlier than the non-individual claims are adjudicated.
