California Rejects Viking River, Allows PAGA Claims to Proceed | JDSUPRA

Case: Adolph v. Uber Tech., Inc.

The California Supreme Court recently rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana by holding that plaintiffs with individual labor claims in arbitration may still bring class representative claims in court under PAGA.  Though the U.S. Supreme Court had interpreted PAGA as disallowing PAGA claims brought by a plaintiff who had already proceeded to arbitration on an individual labor claim, the California Supreme Court ruled it was not bound by the high court’s interpretation and held that plaintiffs could do so.  The Court clarified that a plaintiff must only be an “aggrieved employee” to have standing under PAGA, which requires that the plaintiff must have been employed by an alleged violator and must have been someone against whom an alleged violation was committed.

Noting that it was ‘not bound by [the U.S. Supreme Court’s] interpretation of California law,’ the California court ruled that standing for PAGA claims merely depends on whether an individual is an ‘aggrieved employee’ under the statute.

Source: California Rejects Viking River, Allows PAGA Claims to Proceed