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
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
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....
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
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
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
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...
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...
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
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
