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.
- Epstein Becker Green’s Free Wage-Hour App Includes Updates on New 2024 Laws
- Wage War: Massachusetts Trial Court Rejects Globe Ex-President’s Profit-Sharing Claim Disguised as Wage Act Violation
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on … Inclement Weather Pay Obligations
- New Independent Contractor Rule Facing Multiple Legal Challenges
- The Enforceability of Employees’ Electronic Signatures Is the Next Battleground for Arbitration Agreements With Class Action Waivers