A new brief in Adolph v. Uber, a case involving California’s PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act), asks the state Supreme Court to restore a plaintiff’s ability to pursue another person’s PAGA claims in court, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled isn’t compatible with federal arbitration law.
The amicus (Latin for “friend of the court”) brief filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta urges the state to reassess how PAGA can be applied in another employee’s court case.
“We respectfully disagree with the Attorney General's amicus brief,” Ashley Hoffman, a labor and employment policy advocate with the California Chamber of Commerce, told the Northern California Record. “We agree with Uber, in its brief, that the [U.S.] Supreme Court is correct in its deciding of Viking River Cruises, in that when a plaintiff’s individual claims have been compelled to arbitration, the plaintiff lacks standing to then sue on behalf of others under PAGA in court.”
In addition to its legal arguments, Bonta’s brief factors in a number of policy arguments for PAGA, which differ from industry leaders opposed to it.
“CalChamber has been vocal about how PAGA has unfortunately been abused and has really been manipulated to not go after true bad actors, but to leverage high settlements from employers who are not egregious – not who the statute was originally intended to take aim at.”
Hoffman noted that federal courts do give deference to states about how their own statutes should operate.
“That said, California has on numerous occasions passed laws that conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Hoffman said. “So at the same time California needs to recognize that these laws exist. And not just the laws, but also that these concepts of standing do exist, and that there are bounds that the state can’t exceed.”
The role of amending PAGA ultimately is done by the Legislature. While lawmakers from both parties, including governors, have recognized PAGA’s problems and put some reforms on the table, Hoffman said, meaningful changes have been blocked.
“Regardless of what happens in the Adolph v Uber case, PAGA is not working as the Legislature intended,” Hoffman said, adding that Uber cited committee analysis from when PAGA was first passed, which identified its potential for abuse.
“By legislators saying they didn’t want it abused to target small businesses, and that’s exactly what’s happening,” Hoffman said.
“Something I like to point out – you can think that certain aspects of PAGA are good, or that a law may be needed to allow for certain types of lawsuits to move forward – but that doesn’t allow us to just turn a blind eye to a lot of the problems that have arisen from how this law is used, and that it actually really benefits more trial attorneys than actually the workers or employer community, and that’s something that really should be given thoughtful discussion.”