[ad_1]

On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit in Johnson v. Lowe’s Dwelling Facilities, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (ninth Cir. 2024) vacated a district court docket’s dismissal of a former worker’s nonindividual PAGA claims and remanded the nonindividual claims to permit the district court docket to use California regulation as interpreted in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. fifth 1104 (2023) (“Adolph”).

The plaintiff, a former worker of Lowe’s Dwelling Facilities, LLC, introduced putative class claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of herself and different Lowe’s staff, in addition to a declare underneath California’s Non-public Attorneys Normal Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). The plaintiff signed a pre-dispute employment contract that contained an arbitration clause, and the employer filed a movement to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims.

On September 21, 2022, the district court docket sided with the employer, issuing an order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s particular person claims underneath PAGA, and dismissing the remaining nonindividual PAGA claims. On the time, this was thought-about a direct utility of the US Supreme Courtroom’s June 2022 resolution in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022) (“Viking River”). Nonetheless, in gentle of the California Supreme Courtroom’s latest resolution in Adolph, the plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit granted evaluate.

On attraction, the plaintiff argued that the California Supreme Courtroom resolution in Adolph corrected Viking River’s interpretation of PAGA, holding {that a} PAGA plaintiff can arbitrate their particular person PAGA declare whereas concurrently keep their non-individual PAGA claims in court docket.

The employer took the place that Adolph was inconsistent with Viking River, arguing {that a} state court docket might not interpret state regulation in such a way that it conflicts with federal regulation.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that whereas the district court docket correctly compelled the plaintiff to arbitrate her particular person PAGA declare, the order with respect to the nonindividual PAGA claims was incorrect. The Ninth Circuit in the end vacated the dismissal of the plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims and remanding to the district court docket to use Adolph.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit cited to Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in Viking River that “if this Courtroom’s understanding of state regulation is mistaken, California courts, in an acceptable case, may have the final phrase.” As such, the Ninth Circuit held that nothing in Adolph was inconsistent with the federal regulation articulated in Viking River.

This ruling confirms that nonindividual PAGA claims will possible be stayed pending the arbitration of particular person PAGA claims, even in federal court docket.

[ad_2]