Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Representative Action Under California’s Private Attorneys General Act Not Waived Through Employment Agreement’s Arbitration Provision

August 5, 2015 by Clifton R. Gruhn

The Central District of California held that a waiver of representative actions in an employment agreement’s arbitration provision did not preclude a former employee from pursuing in court a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).  The court further held that the PAGA claim could only be brought in court and not in arbitration.  The plaintiff asserted, on behalf of a putative class, several claims against his former employer for the alleged refusal to allow rest and meal breaks and failure to pay all wages owed and maintain accurate wage records. In addition, the plaintiff sought penalties on behalf of the state under the PAGA. The defendant moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing that, as part of his employment contract, the plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement waiving the right to pursue class and representative actions.

Before addressing whether the arbitration agreement’s representative action waiver precluded the PAGA claim, the court, citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, noted that “‘[t]he principal purpose of the [Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)] is to ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms’” and that “an individual cannot contract away the government’s right to enforce its laws.” The plaintiff argued that “his PAGA claim, which is on behalf of the state and resembles a qui tam action . . . cannot be the subject of an arbitration agreement, because the state is not a party to the arbitration agreement[.]” The defendant argued that “after Concepcion it is clear that the FAA ‘displaces’ a state’s ‘policy concerns’ about enforcement of its labor laws.”

As the court saw it, the PAGA-waiver issue presented two questions: (1) whether “a blanket waiver of PAGA claims in an employment contract [is] possible under California law”; and (2) if not, whether “the claim nonetheless [is] subject to the arbitration agreement.”  Regarding the first question, the court found that the plaintiff’s PAGA claim had not been waived because it was a claim on behalf of the state, as opposed to the claim of a private party arising out of a contractual relationship. In support, the court noted that, before bringing a PAGA claim, a plaintiff “must give notice to the [Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)]” and “may only bring the claim if the LWDA declines to pursue the action itself.”  Regarding the second question, the court found that “the PAGA claim should not be submitted to arbitration” because, as a claim belonging “primarily to the state, it should be the state . . . that agrees to waive the judicial forum.” The court also stated that the legislature “explicitly selected a judicial forum as the default forum” for the resolution of PAGA claims. The court ordered the parties to engage in arbitration under the terms of the arbitration agreement as to all claims except the PAGA claim, which was to remain before the court.

Valdez v. Terminix Int’l Co. Ltd. P’ship, No. 14-09748 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2015).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Eleventh Circuit Holds Rule 23 Trumps State Law Precluding Private Class Actions

Next Article »

Rice Capades: Court Certifies a Class of Lead Lawyers Against Defendant Law Firms Who Allegedly Used the Class’s Work Product in Rice Litigation
Clifton R. Gruhn

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.