California Courts' Split Widens on Arbitrability of PAGA Claims

Additional questions concerning the applicability of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion to representative actions arose this week when a California intermediate court of appeals ruled that claims under the state's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) are not subject to individual arbitration. This decision magnifies a split among the California courts on this issue that will likely remain until the state Supreme Court, and perhaps U.S. Supreme Court, issues a definitive decision.

The panel decision in Brown v. Superior Court "part[s] company" with an earlier ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court had concluded that exempting PAGA claims from arbitration would violate the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The same issue is also pending before the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles.

The PAGA statute allows an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees for labor code violations. At issue is whether an employer can enforce an arbitration agreement that prohibits class or other representative actions in arbitration when an employee brings a PAGA claim.

The panel in Brown held that enforcing the arbitration agreement would violate California public policy. It noted in its analysis that a PAGA claim is a non-waivable statutory claim that provides a public remedy, and such a remedy cannot be effectuated if an arbitrator is precluded from awarding class or representative relief. The panel distinguished Concepcion on the ground that it dealt with private party class actions, not with public rights.

The courts disagreeing with Brown's analysis hold that the FAA contains no exception for PAGA claims. They reason that under Concepcion, arbitration agreements must be enforced as written, and states lack the power to exempt claims from the FAA on public policy grounds. Concepcion held that "[s]tates cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA, even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons."

We disagree with the reasoning in Brown and constantly monitor developments in arbitration law to provide our clients with current advice for drafting and enforcing arbitration agreements.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.