What Are the Practical Implications of California Supreme Court’s Recent PAGA Ruling?

American Bar Association Section of Litigation - Alternative Dispute Resolution, Volume 27, Issue 3
Summer 2023 Publications

Employers will need to assess the merits of a plaintiff’s PAGA standing quite early when faced with a new PAGA action brought by an employee with a valid arbitration agreement.

On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. The decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana last summer, where SCOTUS held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a California law that denied enforcement of an arbitration agreement against an employee and held that an employee’s individual labor code violation claims and representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) could not be divided and had to proceed in court. SCOTUS held that California must enforce the arbitration agreements of individual employees and that such employees lose standing to assert their representative PAGA claims. However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor opined that the issue of representative standing under PAGA was for the California courts to decide.

The issue before the California Supreme Court in Adolph was “whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under PAGA that are ‘premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by’ the plaintiff maintains statutory standing to pursue PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees.” In contrast to SCOTUS, the California Supreme Court answered that plaintiffs do not lose standing to bring a representative claim under PAGA even when a court compels them to litigate their individual claims in arbitration. Thus, the fact that a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate the individual component of a PAGA claim should not automatically result in the dismissal of the employee’s PAGA representative action.

Key Takeaways

In reaching its decision, the California Supreme Court provide guidance on two key issues. First, when an arbitrator issues a ruling on a plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claim and finds that plaintiff did not suffer any Labor Code violations (i.e., the plaintiff is not “aggrieved”), and “if confirmed and reduced to a final judgment, [that ruling] would be binding on the court.” In other words, an arbitrator’s finding that a plaintiff is not aggrieved has preclusive effect on the representative action in the trial court.

Second, the California Supreme Court tacitly approved the notion that trial courts should stay non-individual PAGA claims until the plaintiff’s individual claim is resolved in arbitration. This procedure avoids the risk of inconsistent rulings, such as the arbitrator finding the plaintiff has suffered an injury and therefore has standing, and the trial court concluding otherwise.

Practical Implications

With this ruling in mind, employers will need to assess the merits of a plaintiff’s PAGA standing quite early when faced with a new PAGA action brought by an employee with a valid arbitration agreement.

On the one hand, employers may conclude that a PAGA plaintiff suffered a Labor Code violation and has standing to recover penalties on behalf of aggrieved employees. In that situation, the employer may elect to forgo paying arbitration fees and engage in early mediation to try to reach a negotiated resolution. On the other hand, employers may determine that a PAGA plaintiff will be unable to show he suffered any Labor Code violations. In such cases, the employer may elect to arbitrate the matter believing the employee is not aggrieved and lacks standing to pursue PAGA penalties.

Even though the California Supreme Court’s decision was expected and anticipated, companies should still:

  • Review current arbitration agreements to ensure they are valid and enforceable to the extent allowed under Viking River and Adolph.
  • Weigh the implementation of an arbitration policy to the extent not already done, considering factors such as total number of non-exempt versus exempt employees.
  • Consult with counsel to implement practices for early evaluation of any PAGA claims to determine litigation strategy.

Published in Section of Litigation-Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Point, July 24, 2023, © 2023 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.


Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Orange County, CA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, IL
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606-1520
Google Maps
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
7160 Rafael Rivera Way
Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Orange County, CA
19800 MacArthur Boulevard
Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Google Maps
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
222 South Main St.
Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware