PAGA Actions Still Cannot Be Individually Arbitrated: the U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Iskanian; Other Employment Arbitration Decisions on the Horizon

by Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

[author: Ian Forgie]

On October 16, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the California Court of Appeal’s 2016 decision in Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc.  At least for now then, the California Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC stands.  As readers of this blog will know, that earlier decision determined that employees may not waive their right to bring representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) by signing an arbitration agreement that requires them to arbitrate disputes on an individual, and not on a class or representative, basis.  In Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed this principle, and rejected Bloomingdale’s arguments that Iskanian was wrongly decided or had been overruled In dissecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to review Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale’s, it is worth revisiting that 2016 decision.

Essentially, before the California Court of Appeal, Bloomingdale’s argued that Iskanian was wrongly decided in light of prior and subsequent federal decisions, and that it had been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia in 2015 (which addressed when arbitration provisions in a contract are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, or “FAA”).  Addressing Bloomingdale’s argument that Iskanian had been wrongly decided, the California Court of Appeal held that it was bound by stare decisis to follow the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian and found that, in any case, the Ninth Circuit had also upheld Iskanian’s interpretation of federal case law.  As to the argument that Iskanian had been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in DIRECTV, the Court of Appeal reasoned that DIRECTV did not address the enforceability of PAGA waivers and therefore was irrelevant.

Bloomingdale’s also asked the court to compel arbitration of “the individual portion of Tanguilig’s PAGA claim” and stay “the representative portion” pending arbitration of the individual claim.  The Court of Appeal rejected this argument on the ground that PAGA claims are brought by plaintiffs as representatives of the state and there is no basis for compelling the state to arbitrate its claims against the employer.  Under this principle, the Tanguilig court held that, while “[i]t is less than clear whether an ‘individual’ PAGA cause of action is cognizable, the question was irrelevant because any such claim would be brought by a plaintiff as a representative of the state, which had not agreed to arbitrate its claims, whether individual or collective, against the employer.  (The California Supreme Court, for its part, denied Bloomingdale’s petition for review on March 1, 2017.)

The California Court of Appeal’s logic and decision (and the California Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Court of Appeal decision) is not surprising, and neither are decisions by the Ninth Circuit that are largely consistent with Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale’s.  However, the United States Supreme Court’s denial of review here is surprising.  The Supreme Court, and notably the late Justice Scalia, have largely rejected California’s prior attempts to limit the reach of the FAA.  (See, for example, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.)  It was thought that the Court would continue this line of reasoning given Justice Neil Gorsuch’s close ideological identification with Scalia’s positions.  The decision not to review Tanguilig either means that the Court views PAGA actions as unique (essentially qui tam actions, or actions by the state government brought by private citizens) and therefore not within the scope of its prior decisions on the breadth of the FAA, or that it did not view this case as the proper vehicle to review the reasoning of Iskanian.

The decision not to review Tanguilig will not, however, be the U.S. Supreme Court’s last word on employment arbitration for this term, however.  A few weeks ago, the Court heard oral argument on a trio of cases (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris) addressing whether an employer’s use of class and collective action waivers in arbitration agreements with employees constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has consistently taken the position that such waivers violate the NLRA, but the federal Courts of Appeal are split on this.  And although not shocking, it is remarkable to note that the United States Department of Justice, having initially filed a brief alongside the NLRB under the Obama Administration has now switched sides and argued on behalf of employers and in defense of collective action waivers.

For now, employers should be mindful that PAGA cases cannot be individually arbitrated, and even representative (quasi-class) arbitration is uncertain at best.  (There has been a split between state and federal courts regarding representative arbitration for PAGA, and employers are likely better off in federal court, if such an option is available.)  A periodic review of employment arbitration agreements, with the advice of counsel, is warranted to make sure that the scope of arbitrable claims is properly defined.

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.

© Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.