The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15, 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana could have a tremendous impact upon pending and future litigation, as well as employment practices in the state.
For some California employers, it will impact pending Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) litigation where the named plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with a class and representative action waiver.
In a recent post addressing the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, we mentioned that employers in California will want to consider the “pros and cons” of arbitration agreements should an employer-friendly decision be issued in that case, rather than rush to implement them.
In response, more than a few people have asked the same or similar questions -- What are the “cons” of arbitration agreements? Why wouldn’t an employer want to use arbitration agreements, particularly if they will foreclose Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) actions in California?
There are “cons” to these agreements -- and they are not insignificant.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- The Gig Continues: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22
- Do the PAGA Amendments Create a Trap for California Employers? Yes. Are They Likely to Reduce the Number of PAGA Actions? No.
- The U.S. Department of Labor’s Final Rule Increasing the Salary Threshold for EAP Exemptions Took Effect, Except for the State of Texas as an Employer
- Plaintiffs in California Putative Class Action Lose Numerous Challenges to Enforcing Arbitration, Barring Unclean Hands
- California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week