Abstract
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. This controversial opinion sought to resolve ongoing tension between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) by overturning California precedent dating back to 2014. In keeping with its decades-long crusade to strengthen the FAA, the Supreme Court removed the primary procedural mechanism through which putative PAGA plaintiffs could avoid mandatory arbitration of their claims, instead requiring aggrieved employees to sever their “individual” PAGA claims from the claims of their “similarly aggrieved” coworkers. Those opposed to PAGA viewed this development as a much-needed reprieve from a seemingly relentless onslaught of litigation targeted against employers, while proponents of the statute criticized the opinion as undermining PAGA’s important public policy objectives. Ultimately, rather than providing clarity to the adjudication of PAGA claims subject to arbitration agreements, the time since the Viking River Cruises ruling has seen California courts wrestle with the circuitous and in some instances incorrectly cited language of the nation’s highest court.
Notably, Justice Sonia Sotomayor included a concurring opinion in Viking River Cruises, leaving the door open for California to further modify PAGA in the event the Supreme Court’s reasoning proved faulty. Emboldened by Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, this Note seeks a permanent resolution to the ever-contentious story of PAGA by offering a potential mechanism through which California might modify enforcement of the statute and achieve the state’s public policy objectives while avoiding further FAA preemption.
Recommended Citation
Scot Gauffeny,
The PAGA Problem: Conflict Between California Employment Policy and Federal Arbitration Act Expansion,
57 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 167
(2024).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol57/iss1/5
