With new data showing a rise in claims filed under California’s controversial Private Attorneys General Act, a host of new filings are now before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the country's high court to step in and require California courts to apply uniform arbitration principles.
The petitions specifically are asking the Supreme Court to take up review of a California appellate decision in the case known as Uber v Gregg.
If the SCOTUS does grant the petition for certiorari in Uber v. Gregg, it could help reverse the influx of PAGA cases stemming from the California Supreme Court’s reading of the law in a different PAGA case, Adoplh v. Uber. Recent analysis shows how PAGA continues to expand a subset of the plaintiff’s bar.
Uber in its petition to the SCOTUS describes how “the California courts have refused to follow this Court’s guidance,” from its 8-1 Viking River decision in 2022, holding PAGA subject to federal arbitration rules.
The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is one of several employer groups that have filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs in the Uber v. Gregg petition to the SCOTUS, which had been scheduled for conference on March 15.
“As employers of thousands of Californians, CJAC members have a strong interest in ensuring California courts adhere to the principles of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),” Kyla Christoffersen Powell, CJAC president and CEO, said in an email response to the Northern California Record.
“The California Court of Appeal’s ruling departs from public policies supporting arbitration,” Powell said. “It is essential SCOTUS strike down California’s nonsensical rule allowing plaintiffs who must arbitrate their own PAGA claim to still go to court for someone else’s PAGA claim. This new ruling underscores the need for voters to pass the Fix PAGA ballot measure in November.”
In the Viking River ruling of June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court found PAGA subject to terms of the FAA. But then the California Supreme Court in summer 2023 issued the Adolph v. Uber decision, which found that individuals arbitrating PAGA claims still could join other group claims in court. Decisions in line with the California Supreme Court have since followed, including Uber v. Gregg.
As noted in CJAC’s amicus brief, “According to those decisions, California law permits an employee whose individual PAGA claim has been sent to arbitration to somehow remain in court and seek penalties and attorney’s fees from her employer based on violations involving other employees.”
A recent study found that since the state Supreme Court Adolph ruling last year, PAGA claims have grown exponentially.
But how the SCOTUS will interpret the PAGA question in Uber v. Gregg remains to be seen, and it’s possible they may decline to hear it.
There may be other relief from PAGA coming on the November general election ballot, with the Fix PAGA ballot decision, while lawmakers also could vote to reform PAGA at any time.
The question in Uber’s petition to the SCOTUS, which was filed last December, states: “Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the complete severance of arbitrable individual PAGA claims from non-individual PAGA claims, with the individual PAGA claims committed to a separate proceeding?”
While the Uber v. Gregg case has been distributed to the SCOTUS for conference, it is not yet known when they would decide whether to grant full review.