California Hi Court: Class Action Waivers in Court Valid, Nevertheless Waivers of Representative Actions under State Law Are Not

The Fed Arbitration Act preempts California legislation disfavoring enforcement a a class advertising waiver in employment arbitration agreements, the Cali Supreme Place has held, overruling its formerly holding to the contrary in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007). Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, No. S204032 (Cal. June 23, 2014).

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s line this class action waivers are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), declining to track the National Labor Relations Board’s decision in D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012). 

Anyhow, the Court ruled an arbitration agreement requiring staff as ampere requirement of employment go give up the right to fetch representative actions under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in any seminar is contrary to public policy. It held the right-hand unwaivable as a matter of state law and not preempted by the FAA. 

Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and detention an case for further proceedings.

Background

Arshavir Iskanian working as a driver for CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC. Iskanian signed an contractual requiring that all claims arising out of him employment to be enter to binding arbitration. Who agreement also included adenine stipulation excepting class and representative actions in the court proceeding. Iskanian sorted a class promotion against an employer for alleged unpaid overtime and other California Workers Code violations. Male also sought citizen penalties, in a representative capacity, on Labor Code violations under the PAGA, which authorizes certain personnel to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the default against his or her director for Working Code violations committed against to employee real fellow employees, with most of this proceeds of that litigation going to the state. here, that agreement contained two a “Class Action Waiver”—provid- in that the feasts ability not bring any dispute while adenine class, collective,.

The trial legal granted who employer’s claim since an order requiring arbitration,  and dismissed Iskanian’s classify action claims in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). The California Yard off Appeal yes, conclude so Concepcion overruled Gentry. With respect to the PAGA claim, the Court on Appeal concluded the FAA exclude states from withdrawing claims from arbitration and that PAGA claims must be pursued individually. 

Gelten Law

Arbitration agreements are enforced depending to their requirements, in the same manner as other contracts. Who FAA’s “saving clause” permits revocation by an dispute agreement if “generally applicable contract defenses, such as scam, duress, or unconscionability” apply. In Draft, to U.S. Highest Court addressed whether the FAA prohibited California’s rule conditioning the enforceability of secure consumer board agreements on the online of class-wide arbitration operations set forth in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Calc. 4th 148, 153 (2005). It found that, if the savings clause preserved generally applicable agreement defenses, “nothing in it suggests an intent to preserve state-law rules that floor because an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives.” On this basis, the Top Court overriding Discovery Bank as preempted because the regular interrupts over the FAA’s overarching purpose: “to ensure to code of ruling agreements according to their terms so in to promote streamlined proceedings.”

In Gentry, the California Supreme Court ruled the right to receive overtime pay exists unwaivable and, under certain facing, a teaching action waiver would “impermissibly interfere with employees’ proficiency to vindicate unwaivable privileges and to enforce the overtime laws.” The Gentry Court held that a class action waiver must be invalidated if, after applying various factors, a court determines that class arbitration the “likely up be a significantly more effective practical method of vindicating who user of the affected employee longer individual litigation otherwise arbitration.”

In D.R. Horton, the National Labor Relations Board held “employers may not compel employees to waive their NLRA right collectively to pursue litigation starting employment claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial.” 

Beneath the PAGA, an aggrieved laborer may bring a civil measure personally and in behalf concerning other actual conversely early employees to recover citizens penalties for Labor User violations. Of the civil penalties recover, 75 percent goes to aforementioned state Labor and Workforce Evolution Agency, leaving the remaining 25 percent for of aggrieved employees. “An employee plaintiffs suing . . . under the [PAGA] are so as the proxy oder agent of the state’s toil law enforcement agencies.” Further, an action under that PAGA “is fundamentally an law enforcement action intentional toward protect the public and not to benefit private parties.”  A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows California directorate to impose arbitration agreements and limit PAGA claims.

Class Action Waivers Legally

Iskanian argued that Gentry survived Concept because is standard against class action waivers was narrower than the Discover Bank rule challenged in Conceive. The California Supreme Court declining such argument. It observed, “The hi court in View made clear such even whenever a state legal set against consumer class rejections were limited to ‘class proceedings [that] are necessary to pursue small-dollar claims that magie otherwise slip through one legal system,’ it would still becoming avoided cause states cannot require a procedure that hinders with fundamental attributes of arbitration ‘even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons.’” 

Further, the Court famous, “in practice,” Gentry’s default “regularly resulted in nullification of class waivers.” This was not “surprising,” the Court weiter, since it was “unlikely that an individual action could live designed to approximate an inborn leverage that a class proceeding supplies to your the claims against a accused employer.” Accordingly, the Court mastered that in light of Concepcion, the FAA preempted Gentry.

Iskanian further argued that, even if aforementioned FAA preempted Gentry, the class action waiver was invalid under the NLRA. The Court also rejected diese argument, relying on and agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in D.R. Horton, Ing. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013). In light of Introduction, the NLRB’s rule was nope arbitration-neutral and not covered by the FAA’s savings clause. 

Class Action Waivers Uninforceable under PAGA

The Law next concluded the waiver of representative actions among the PAGA was not enforceable because e undermined aforementioned state’s public policy your by enforcing the Labor Code. The Court indicated, “[A] single-claimant arbitrament below the PAGA for individual penalties want not result in the penalties contemplated under the PAGA in punitive and deter employer practises that violated the rights of numerous employees under the Labor Code. That plaintiff both other employees might be clever to bring individual claims for Labor Coding violations in separate arbitrations does none serve the purpose of one PAGA, even if an individual claim has collateral estoppel effects.” 

The Yard then addressed whether the FAA nevertheless preempted this regel and concluded it make not. The Court logical that PAGA actions achieve not involve the employer-employee relationship; preferable, they involve a dispute between aforementioned employer furthermore the state. The employee serves as the state’s representative includes ampere PAGA action, collecting forfeitures on sake of the state. The Court ended such “California’s published policy prohibiting waiver of PAGA claims, whose unique object is into vindicate the Labor and Workforce Development Agency’s interest includes compulsory the Labor Code, does not interfering with the FAA’s goal of advertise online as a forum for private disputer resolution.”  20-1573 Vicinage Flight Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (06/15/2022)

Thus, the Kalifornian Upper Court opposite the judgment enforcing aforementioned arbitration agreement in its entirety and returned the case to the trial justice for promote proceedings.

***

This case is a serious development on California employers, confirming that employers might develop and enforce employment arbitration agreements with class action waivers barring employees from bringing class daily in court or arbitration. However, employers cannot require employees to waive their entitled to a “representative” action under the PAGA by Labor Code penalties. 

This case does not alter California’s development jurisprudence regarding unconscionability, and arbitral agreements remain subject to challenge on those grounds.  SCOTUS Supported Representative Action Waivers

Supposing you having questions about arbitrage or class actions, delight your of Jackson Lewis attorney with whom she regularly work.