Search

Search form

Scott P. JangBlog Posts

See all

  • U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

    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 River Cruises, filed... Continue Reading
    August 24, 2022
  • California Supreme Court Accepts Invitation to Weigh In on Employment Arbitration Agreements & PAGA

    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... Continue Reading
    August 16, 2022
  • U.S. Supreme Court Deals Blow to California’s Private Attorneys General Act

    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, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (June 15, 2022). The Court’s decision overrules the California’s Supreme Court decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp....
    June 16, 2022
  • U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Waiver of PAGA Claims in Arbitration Agreements

    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).... Continue Reading
    March 31, 2022
  • Ninth Circuit Defers Decision on Petition for Rehearing Regarding AB 51

    Last year, a divided Ninth Circuit panel found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not completely preempt Assembly Bill (AB) 51, California’s ban on mandatory arbitration agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce then filed a petition for rehearing en banc (Petition), which has been pending before the Ninth Circuit since October 2021. On February... Continue Reading
    February 18, 2022
  • Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration agreement, but... Continue Reading
    November 4, 2021
  • Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration...
    November 2, 2021
  • Federal Arbitration Act Partial Bar on California’s Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Contracts, Court Holds

    The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only partially preempts California’s bar on mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, vacating the preliminary injunction that had been in place since early-2020 and enjoining enforcement of the law with respect to arbitration agreements governed by the FAA. Chamber of Commerce of...
    September 16, 2021
  • $102 Million Pay Stub, Meal Break Judgment Against Walmart Reversed

    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 Ninth...… Continue Reading
    June 16, 2021
  • $102 Million Pay Stub, Meal Break Judgment Against Walmart Reversed

    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 Ninth... Continue Reading
    June 11, 2021

Pages