[ad_1]
On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit in Johnson v. Lowe’s Residence Facilities, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (ninth Cir. 2024) vacated a district court docket’s dismissal of a former worker’s nonindividual PAGA claims and remanded the nonindividual claims to permit the district court docket to use California regulation as interpreted in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. fifth 1104 (2023) (“Adolph”).
The plaintiff, a former worker of Lowe’s Residence Facilities, LLC, introduced putative class claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of herself and different Lowe’s workers, in addition to a declare below California’s Non-public Attorneys Common Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). The plaintiff signed a pre-dispute employment contract that contained an arbitration clause, and the employer filed a movement to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims.
On September 21, 2022, the district court docket sided with the employer, issuing an order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s particular person claims below PAGA, and dismissing the remaining nonindividual PAGA claims. On the time, this was thought of a direct utility of america Supreme Court docket’s June 2022 choice in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022) (“Viking River”). Nonetheless, in mild of the California Supreme Court docket’s current choice in Adolph, the plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit granted assessment.
On attraction, the plaintiff argued that the California Supreme Court docket choice in Adolph corrected Viking River’s interpretation of PAGA, holding {that a} PAGA plaintiff can arbitrate their particular person PAGA declare whereas concurrently preserve their non-individual PAGA claims in court docket.
The employer took the place that Adolph was inconsistent with Viking River, arguing {that a} state court docket could not interpret state regulation in such a way that it conflicts with federal regulation.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that whereas the district court docket correctly compelled the plaintiff to arbitrate her particular person PAGA declare, the order with respect to the nonindividual PAGA claims was incorrect. The Ninth Circuit finally vacated the dismissal of the plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims and remanding to the district court docket to use Adolph.
In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit cited to Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in Viking River that “if this Court docket’s understanding of state regulation is unsuitable, California courts, in an acceptable case, can have the final phrase.” As such, the Ninth Circuit held that nothing in Adolph was inconsistent with the federal regulation articulated in Viking River.
This ruling confirms that nonindividual PAGA claims will doubtless be stayed pending the arbitration of particular person PAGA claims, even in federal court docket.
[ad_2]
