The Issue Was Resolved By The California Supreme Court In July 2023, And Lower Courts Are In-Step.
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court addressed the following question: "[W]hether 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 court." The Court held that the answer is "yes". Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., S274671 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 7/17/23) (Liu; Guerrero, Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, Evans).
This conclusion is contrary to the explanation provided by Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. Alito opined that once the individual PAGA plaintiff was compelled to arbitrate individual claims, the plaintiff lacked standing to litigate representative PAGA claims. However, Justice Liu explained that the California Supreme Court, in accord with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's concurrence in Viking River Cruises, was the final interpreter of a California statute. He concluded that under the California PAGA statutory framework, the individual PAGA plaintiff had standing to bring representative claims.
The latest California case recognizing that Adolph has resolved the representative standing issue for now is Barrera v. Apple American Group LLC, A165445 (1/2 8/31/23).
In a Daily Journal article earlier this year I presented the disagreement between the California courts and the US Supreme Court regarding standing of an individual PAGA plaintiff to pursue representative claims. Though I resisted the temptation to guess how the California Supreme Court would rule on the issue, I am not in the least bit surprised by the result.
Comments