viking river cruises inc. v. moriana case brief

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

LII Supreme Court Bulletin

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

LII note: the oral arguments in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana are now available from Oyez . The U.S. Supreme Court has now decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana .

arbitration
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Issues

Does the Federal Arbitration Act preempt the California Private Attorneys General Act to require state courts to enforce a bilateral arbitration agreement stipulating that an employee cannot raise representative claims?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act demands that state courts enforce an arbitration agreement’s waiver of the statutory right of action to collect penalties on behalf of the state, despite state law prohibiting such a contractual waiver. Petitioner Viking River Cruises argues that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that arbitration agreements signed by employees must be enforced as written for claims brought under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) because such claims are individual disputes and incompatible with the procedures of individual bilateral arbitration. Respondent Angie Moriana counters that PAGA claims involve the state, not the individual, and that PAGA’s anti-waiver rule is necessary to bolster the state’s labor law enforcement. The outcome of this case has important implications for the enforcement of state labor codes, the availability of civil remedies for workers, and the effectiveness of arbitration agreements to resolve employment-related disputes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires state courts to a enforce an arbitration agreement that includes a waiver of a statutory right of action to collect penalties on behalf of a state, even when such a waiver is prohibited by the state’s law.

Facts

From 2016 to 2017, Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises , Inc. (“Viking”), a company that globally operates and sells trips on ocean and river cruise lines. Brief for the Petitioner , Viking River Cruises, Inc., at 12. Before commencing her employment, Moriana signed an agreement with the company that required any dispute arising out of the employment to be submitted to bilateral arbitration . Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. , at 2. The agreement stipulated that Moriana waived the right to bring a dispute as a class , representative , or private attorney general action. Id . A private attorney general action is a private cause of action brought on the state’s behalf to recover civil penalties. Brief for the Respondent , Angie Moriana, at 10. During her employment, the company allegedly subjected her, along with other sales representatives, to numerous violations of California’s Labor Code. Id. at 8. Subsequently, after the end of her employment, Moriana brought suit against Viking in California state court under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Id. at 8. Her complaint pleaded a representative claim seeking recovery of civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and on behalf of similarly aggrieved current and former employees. Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. , at 1.

Viking sought an order to compel Moriana to submit her PAGA claim to arbitration as an individual claim and sought to dismiss the representative claim. Brief for the Respondent at 9. The trial court denied Viking’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the individual plaintiff in a PAGA claim acts as a proxy for the state so that the interested party in a PAGA representative claim is the state rather than the plaintiff seeking individual relief. Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. , at 1. Thus, the trial court found that the California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC , 59 Cal.4 th 348, 327 P.3d 129 (2014) remains good law, finding that state courts cannot enforce arbitration agreements that waive the right to file PAGA representative actions. Id. at 2. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second District , affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. Id. at 2. The California Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary review on December 9, 2020. Brief for the Petitioner at 3.

The United States Supreme Court granted Viking’s petition for writ of certiorari on December 15, 2021. Brief for the Petitioner at 1.

Analysis

The federal arbitration act and preemption.

Petitioner Viking River Cruises contends that Section 2 of the FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms, thereby preventing non-bilateral actions by Moriana. Brief for Petitioner, Viking River Cruises , p. 28. To support this assertion, Viking River Cruises points to the language of the FAA and several cases in which the Supreme Court has enforced arbitration agreements that expressly waive the right to pursue class actions or other collective proceedings. Id. at 20. Viking River Cruises asserts that the rigid enforcement of agreed-upon bilateral arbitration stems from its unique attributes, including the lack of appellate review and lower procedural rigor intended to facilitate efficient, low-cost private dispute resolution. Id. at 20–21.

Viking River Cruises argues that the FAA preempts a California rule (the “ Iskanian rule”) established under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC . Id. at 22–23. In Iskanian , the California Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of an individual, bilateral arbitration agreement where the employee sought to pursue a class action and representative PAGA action. Id. at 9. Viking River Cruises describes the Iskanian rule as stating that the FAA does not preempt privately brought PAGA actions because the FAA governs the resolution of “ private disputes, whereas a PAGA action is a dispute between an employer and the state.” Id. at 11. Viking River Cruises argues, however, that PAGA claims fall under—and are therefore precluded by—the FAA because PAGA claims generate private, individual disputes rather than disputes between the state and an employer. Id. at 35–36. Pointing to the facts of this case, Viking River Cruises notes that the state of California played no role in initiating this litigation. Id. at 36. In addition, Viking River Cruises argues that the FAA preempts the Iskanian rule even if the logic under Iskanian were sound because PAGA actions should not be treated differently from explicitly preempted collection actions, such as class actions. Id. at 23. Viking River Cruises contends that PAGA operates in similar way to other collective actions like class action suits, enabling a plaintiff to procedurally pursue claims or obtain relief on behalf of other people. Id. at 24. As part of this contention, Viking River Cruises argues that PAGA claims “go[] one very large step beyond” other collective actions because they allow plaintiffs to pursue relief for other violations that did not affect them personally. Id.

Respondent Moriana counters that the FAA does not preempt the right to pursue PAGA claims because the employment agreement at issue expressly prevents the pursuit of any PAGA claim in any forum, rather than merely limiting the ability to pursue individual, bilateral claims. Brief for Respondent, Moriana , at 13. To support this assertion, Moriana relies on the Iskanian rule, which conceptualizes PAGA claims for civil penalties as claims in which the individual PAGA plaintiff “represents the State in asserting its claim.” Id. at 13–14. Moriana contends that the employment agreement at issue “unequivocally requires an employee to ‘forgo PAGA claims’” because it bars all PAGA actions generally. Id. at 14. Based on this contention, Moriana claims that FAA does not and should not preempt the rights of individual employees to pursue PAGA claims because doing so would effectively eliminate employees of their statutory rights under PAGA. Id. at 14–15.

Moriana emphasizes that questions of statutory preemption depend on a statute’s text and structure, and Moriana argues that the FAA contains no such text or structure to support preclusion of PAGA claims. Id. at 15. Noting that Section 2 of the FAA establishes the enforceability of contract provisions “to settle by arbitration a controversy,” Moriana contends that this specific language is meant to enforce agreements to arbitrate, not to prevent claims by “precluding the parties from asserting them in arbitration or court.” Id. at 16. According to Moriana, the FAA thus only compels parties to submit disputed issues to an arbitrator. Id. at 17. Furthermore, Moriana highlights language from other sections in the FAA to argue that the FAA specifically protects issues that are referrable to arbitration and does not bar claims, like PAGA claims, that parties have agreed are not addressable through arbitration. Id. at 17–18. Thus, Moriana concludes that neither the FAA’s text nor structure support the ability of an arbitration agreement to waive a plaintiff’s statutory claims in their entirety. Id. at 19–20.

PROCEDURAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE FAA AND PAGA

Viking River Cruises argues that mandated access to PAGA proceedings, even in the presence of exclusive bilateral arbitration agreements, would lead to inefficient, costly procedural complications. Brief for Petitioner, at 26. Viking River Cruises points to the features of bilateral arbitration that enable quick dispute resolution, such as reaching the merits of a claim without the fact determinations required under PAGA. Id. at 27. Viking River Cruises argues that allowing PAGA claims to preempt enforcement of contractual waiver under the FAA would open the door to “unwieldy proceedings” that involve hundreds of different plaintiffs. Id. at 28. Viking River Cruises emphasizes that such a result could generate procedural difficulties due to the ability for a PAGA action to encompass a large number of Labor Code disputes unrelated to the individual employee that had agreed to bilateral arbitration. Id. at 27. Furthermore, Viking River Cruises notes that PAGA actions themselves impose procedural burdens that “far exceed[] those in bilateral arbitration.” Id. at 28. For example, Viking River Cruises asserts that involving a large number of potentially aggrieved employees creates the likelihood that an individual employee initiating the PAGA action will not have access to central pieces of discovery for other employees. Id. at 28–29.

In contrast, Moriana asserts that arguments about procedural incompatibility between the FAA and PAGA are misguided because the FAA features no text, structure, or content that suggests that its purpose includes preventing states from authorizing claims of “magnitude and complexity . . . inconsistent with a defendant’s view of what is suitable for arbitration.” Brief for Respondent, at 26–27. Moriana contends that the FAA’s primary purpose was to enable parties to select arbitration as their dispute resolution mechanism, not to extinguish the right to arbitrate or litigate a claim based on its complexity or scope. Id. at 27. Thus, Moriana argues that the FAA embodies a Congressional policy for enabling parties to select arbitration as the forum for dispute resolution, rather than enabling parties to force forfeiture of submitting claims in their entirety. Id. at 24–25. Furthermore, Moriana notes that the Supreme Court has recognized arbitration’s capacity for resolving complex, high-stakes issues involving multiple parties. Id. For example, Moriana refers to Supreme Court decisions holding that complex securities-fraud and RICO claims are arbitrable despite their complexity and consideration of multiparty effects. Id. at 28 . Moriana contends that such decisions undermine Viking River Cruises’ argument that the FAA is wholly incompatible with claims requiring consideration of effects on those other than the plaintiff, which would allegedly necessitate enforcement of waivers to such claims. Id.

Discussion

Paga litigation burden.

In support of Viking, Uber Technologies, Inc . and Postmates, LLC (“Uber”) argue that, in the wake of Iskanian , employers face an “explosive growth of PAGA claims.” Brief of Amici Curiae Uber Technologies, Inc. and Postmates, LLC (“Uber”) , in support of Petitioner at 13 . Uber asserts that PAGA claims have overwhelmingly replaced class actions for California Labor Code disputes. Id. at 14. Moreover, Uber points out that California Supreme Court’s application of the Labor Code to out-of-state employers will result in increased PAGA litigation for out-of-state companies. Id. at 15. The Restaurant Law Center emphasizes that PAGA’s purpose was to decrease the administrative burden of enforcement by allowing employees to seek civil penalties on behalf of the State. Brief of Amicus Curiae of Restaurant Law Center , in support of Petitioner at 20. However, Iskanian and subsequent cases, according to Restaurant Law Center, have undermined PAGA’s purpose by allowing employees to avoid contractual obligations and submit an unworkable number of PAGA claims similar to class actions. Id. at 21. The Restaurant Law Center asserts that increased case burden in courts will result in less recovery for employees and in increase litigation time and costs. Id.

Civil Procedure and Arbitration Law Professors (the “Professors”), in support of Moriana, counter that the increased influx of PAGA actions does not result in enhanced administrative burden because courts are already accustomed to dealing with fact-intensive, complex claims like PAGA actions. Brief of Amici Curiae Civil Procedure and Arbitration Law Professors (“Professors) , in support of Respondent at 9–10. The Professors assert that California courts can parse which cases are too unmanageable for court and would better proceed in arbitration. Id. at 12. Furthermore, Steve Chow, a small business owner, argues that PAGA waivers would detrimentally impact small businesses. Brief of Amicus Curiae Steve Chow , in support of Respondent at 2. Chow posits that, unlike large corporations, small businesses would be forced to forego PAGA waivers because they cannot afford arbitration costs. Id. at 8. Because large corporations can easily disregard the Labor Code’s strict measures vis-à-vis PAGA waivers, Chow argues, “mom-and-pop shops” that will continue to be sued under PAGA will ultimately face a major competitive disadvantage in the market. Id. at 9.

REMEDIES FOR EMPLOYEES

The Retail Litigation Center, Inc. , and the National Retail Federation (“RLC”), in support of Viking, contend that PAGA deprives employees of the primary benefit of bilateral arbitration agreements: avoiding the unpredictability and expenses of litigation. Brief of Amicus Curiae Retail Litigation Center, Inc., and the National Retail Federation (“RLC”) , in support of Petitioner at 2. Because employees can always pursue the same claim in state courts, the RLC attests that parties will be hindered from reaching complete agreement and resolution. Id. at 2–3. The RLC emphasizes that allowing an employee to bring a representative PAGA claim will over-include other similarly situated employees, who will then be automatically foreclosed from pursuing the benefits of arbitration. Id. at 3–4. Additionally, the California Business and Industrial Alliance (“CABIA”) argues that the litigation of PAGA claims results in significantly diminish recovery payments for employees compared to arbitrated PAGA disputes. Brief of Amicus Curiae California Business and Industrial Alliance (“CABIA”) , in support of Petitioner at 7. CABIA also asserts that employees must wait nearly a year longer for awards from litigated PAGA cases than awards from the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). Id. The CABIA contends that lack of a waiver does not serve public interest because employers pay nearly $300,000 more per PAGA case in comparison to a LWDA case. Id.

In support of Moriana, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. , and California Rural legal Assistance Foundation (“CRLA”) highlight California’s history of protections for workers through administrative hearings and civil actions. Brief of Amici Curiae California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., and California Rural legal Assistance Foundation (“CRLA”) , in support of Respondent at 10. CRLA asserts that California enacted PAGA to curb the widespread violation of labor laws. Id. at 14–15. CLRA points out that wage theft is a particularly harmful issue in the low-wage worker sector and contends that PAGA properly protects the welfare of workers by strengthening enforcement of civil penalties for violations. Id. at 17-18. Moreover, PAGA serves the interests of employees, CRLA argues, by reimbursing them for taking on the burden of enforcing labor law on behalf of the state. Id. at 18. Public Justice asserts that the waiver of representative actions completely deprives employees of their statutory rights to recover. Brief of Amicus Curiae Public Justice , in support of Respondent at 12-13. Public Justice asserts that representative actions are frequently the only avenue for individuals to seek justice and PAGA waivers would allow arbitration agreements to dispossess people of their right to seek substantive remedies. Id. at 15.

Conclusion

Written by:.

Charlene Hong

Andrew (Keum Yong) Lee

Micaela Lucero

Acknowledgments

Additional resources .

Grace Bennett, Viking River Cruise, Inc. v. Moriana : The Death of PAGA and Another Arbitration Workaround ? OnLabor (Mar. 9, 2022).
Julia Trankiem & Michael Pearlson, How Justices’ Upcoming PAGA Ruling May Affect Employers , Law360 (Mar. 7, 2022).
Daniel Wiessner, California AG Tells SCOTUS Arbitration Exemption Key to Enforcing Labor Laws , Reuters (Mar. 9, 2022).

Find a Lawyer
Ask a Lawyer
Research the Law
Law Schools
Laws & Regs
Newsletters
Justia Connect
Pro Membership
Basic Membership
Justia Lawyer Directory
Platinum Placements
Gold Placements
Justia Elevate
Justia Amplify
PPC Management
Google Business Profile
Social Media
Justia Onward Blog

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)

California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) authorizes any “aggrieved employee” to initiate an action against a former employer on behalf of himself and other current or former employees to obtain civil penalties that previously could have been recovered only by California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. California precedent holds that a PAGA suit is a “representative action” in which the plaintiff sues as an “agent or proxy” of the state. Moriana filed a PAGA action against her former employer, Viking, alleging multiple violations with respect to herself and other employees. Moriana’s employment contract contained a mandatory arbitration agreement with a “Class Action Waiver,” providing that the parties could not bring any class, collective, or representative action under PAGA, and a severability clause. California courts denied Viking’s motion to compel arbitration.

The Supreme Court reversed. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 (FAA), preempts California precedent that precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate. Viking was entitled to compel arbitration of Moriana’s individual claim. Moriana would then lack standing to maintain her non-individual claims in court. A PAGA action asserting multiple violations under California’s Labor Code affecting a range of different employees does not constitute “a single claim.” Nothing in the FAA establishes a categorical rule mandating enforcement of waivers of standing to assert claims on behalf of absent principals. PAGA’s built-in mechanism of claim joinder is in conflict with the FAA. State law cannot condition the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate on the availability of a procedural mechanism that would permit a party to expand the scope of the anticipated arbitration by introducing claims that the parties did not jointly agree to arbitrate.

An employer is entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement with respect to an individual employee who attempted to bring a "representative action" under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts California precedent that precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 , 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v . Moriana

certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district

No. 20–1573. Argued March 30, 2022—Decided June 15, 2022

The question for decision is whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq. , preempts a rule of California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code §2698 et seq. PAGA enlists employees as private attorneys general to enforce California labor law. By its terms, PAGA authorizes any “aggrieved employee” to initiate an action against a former employer “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees” to obtain civil penalties that previously could have been recovered only by the State in an enforcement action brought by California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). California precedent holds that a PAGA suit is a “ ‘representative action’ ” in which the employee plaintiff sues as an “ ‘agent or proxy’ ” of the State. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC , 59 Cal. 4th 348, 380. California precedent also interprets the statute to contain what is effectively a rule of claim joinder—allowing a party to unite multiple claims against an opposing party in a single action. An employee with PAGA standing may “seek any civil penalties the state can, including penalties for violations involving employees other than the PAGA litigant herself.” ZB, N. A. v. Superior Court , 8 Cal. 5th 175, 185.

Respondent Angie Moriana filed a PAGA action against her former employer Viking River Cruises, alleging a California Labor Code violation. She also asserted a wide array of other violations allegedly sustained by other Viking employees. Moriana’s employment contract with Viking contained a mandatory arbitration agreement. Important here, that agreement contained both a “Class Action Waiver”—providing that the parties could not bring any dispute as a class, collective, or representative action under PAGA—and a severability clause—specifying that if the waiver was found invalid, such a dispute would presumptively be litigated in court. Under the severability clause, any “portion” of the waiver that remained valid would be “enforced in arbitration.” Viking moved to compel arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim and to dismiss her other PAGA claims. Applying California’s Iskanian precedent, the California courts denied that motion, holding that categorical waivers of PAGA standing are contrary to California policy and that PAGA claims cannot be split into arbitrable “individual” claims and nonarbitrable “representative” claims. This Court granted certiorari to decide whether the FAA preempts the California rule.

Held : The FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate. Pp. 7–21.

(a) Based on the principle that “[a]rbitration is strictly ‘a matter of consent,’ ” Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 , 299, this Court has held that “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so,” Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. , 559 U.S. 662 , 684. Because class-action arbitration mandates procedural changes that are inconsistent with the individualized and informal mode of bilateral arbitration contemplated by the FAA, see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333 , 347, class procedures cannot be imposed by state law without presenting unwilling parties with an unacceptable choice between being compelled to arbitrate using such procedures and forgoing arbitration all together.

Viking contends that the Court’s FAA precedents require enforcement of contractual provisions waiving the right to bring PAGA actions because PAGA creates a form of class or collective proceeding. If this is correct, Iskanian ’s prohibition on PAGA waivers presents parties with an impermissible choice: Either arbitrate disputes using a form of class procedures, or do not arbitrate at all. Moriana maintains that any conflict between Iskanian and the FAA is illusory because PAGA creates nothing more than a substantive cause of action.

This Court disagrees with both characterizations of the statute. Moriana’s premise that PAGA creates a unitary private cause of action is irreconcilable with the structure of the statute and the ordinary legal meaning of the word “claim.” A PAGA action asserting multiple violations under California’s Labor Code affecting a range of different employees does not constitute “a single claim” in even the broadest possible sense. Viking’s position, on the other hand, elides important structural differences between PAGA actions and class actions. A class-action plaintiff can raise a multitude of claims because he or she represents a multitude of absent individuals; a PAGA plaintiff, by contrast, represents a single principal, the LWDA, that has a multitude of claims. As a result, PAGA suits exhibit virtually none of the procedural characteristics of class actions.

This Court’s FAA precedents treat bilateral arbitration as the prototype of the individualized and informal form of arbitration protected from undue state interference by the FAA. See, e.g., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis , 584 U. S. ___, ___. Viking posits that a proceeding is “bilateral” only if it involves two and only two parties and “is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 , 348. Thus, Iskanian ’s prohibition on PAGA waivers is inconsistent with the FAA because PAGA creates an intrinsically representational form of action and Iskanian requires parties either to arbitrate in that format or forgo arbitration altogether.

This Court disagrees. Nothing in the FAA establishes a categorical rule mandating enforcement of waivers of standing to assert claims on behalf of absent principals. Non-class representative actions in which a single agent litigates on behalf of a single principal necessarily deviate from the strict ideal of bilateral dispute resolution posited by Viking, but this Court has never held that the FAA imposes a duty on States to render all forms of representative standing waivable by contract or that such suits deviate from the norm of bilateral arbitration. Unlike procedures distinctive to multiparty litigation, single-principal, single-agent representative actions are “bilateral” in two registers: They involve the rights of only the absent real party in interest and the defendant, and litigation need only be conducted by the agent-plaintiff and the defendant. Nothing in this Court’s precedent suggests that in enacting the FAA, Congress intended to require States to reshape their agency law governing who can assert claims on behalf of whom to ensure that parties will never have to arbitrate disputes in a proceeding that deviates from bilateral arbitration in the strictest sense. Pp. 7–17.

(b) PAGA’s built-in mechanism of claim joinder is in conflict with the FAA. Iskanian ’s prohibition on contractual division of PAGA actions into constituent claims unduly circumscribes the freedom of parties to determine “the issues subject to arbitration” and “the rules by which they will arbitrate,” Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela , 587 U. S. ____, ____, and does so in a way that violates the fundamental principle that “arbitration is a matter of consent,” Stolt-Nielsen , 559 U. S., at 684. For that reason, state law cannot condition the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate on the availability of a procedural mechanism that would permit a party to expand the scope of the anticipated arbitration by introducing claims that the parties did not jointly agree to arbitrate. A state rule imposing an expansive rule of joinder in the arbitral context would defeat the ability of parties to control which claims are subject to arbitration by permitting parties to superadd new claims to the proceeding, regardless of whether the agreement committed those claims to arbitration. When made compulsory by way of Iskanian , PAGA’s joinder rule functions in exactly this way. The effect is to coerce parties into withholding PAGA claims from arbitration. Iskanian ’s indivisibility rule effectively coerces parties to opt for a judicial forum rather than “forgo[ing] the procedural rigor and appellate review of the courts to realize the benefits of private dispute resolution.” Stolt-Nielsen , 559 U. S., at 685. Pp. 17–19.

(c) Under this Courts holding, Iskanian ’s prohibition on wholesale waivers of PAGA claims is not preempted by the FAA. But Iskanian ’s rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims is preempted, so Viking was entitled to compel arbitration of Moriana’s individual claim. PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding. And under PAGA’s standing requirement, a plaintiff has standing to maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action. As a result, Moriana would lack statutory standing to maintain her non-individual claims in court, and the correct course was to dismiss her remaining claims. Pp. 20–21.

Reversed and remanded.

Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined, in which Roberts, C. J., joined as to Parts I and III, and in which Kavanaugh and Barrett, JJ., joined as to Part III. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Barrett, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Kavanaugh, J., joined, and in which Roberts, C. J, joined as to all but the footnote. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion (Alito)
Concurrence (Sotomayor)
Concurrence (Barrett)
Dissent (Thomas)
Oral Arguments
Briefs & Filings
Download PDF Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

Bankruptcy Lawyers
Business Lawyers
Criminal Lawyers
Employment Lawyers
Estate Planning Lawyers
Family Lawyers
Personal Injury Lawyers
Estate Planning
Personal Injury
Business Formation
Business Operations
Intellectual Property
International Trade
Real Estate
Financial Aid
Course Outlines
Law Journals
US Constitution
Regulations
Supreme Court
Circuit Courts
District Courts
Dockets & Filings
State Constitutions
State Codes
State Case Law
Legal Blogs
Business Forms
Product Recalls
Justia Connect Membership
Justia Premium Placements
Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

You are using an outdated browser no longer supported by Oyez. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Get Email Updates from Ballotpedia

First Name *

Please complete the Captcha above

Ballotpedia on Facebook

Share this page

Follow Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia on Twitter

Viking river cruises, inc. v. moriana.

Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
CHIEF JUSTICE ERAS
HISTORIC SCOTUS CASES
MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2016 TERM
What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split?
MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2014 TERM
MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2013 TERM
MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2012 TERM
2022 VACANCY AND JACKSON CONFIRMATION
2020 VACANCY AND BARRETT CONFIRMATION
2018 VACANCY AND KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION
2017 VACANCY AND GORSUCH CONFIRMATION

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term . The case was argued before the court on March 30, 2022.

In an 8-1 ruling, the court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Iskanian because it precludes division of California Private Attorneys General Act lawsuits into individual and non-individual claims through an arbitration agreement. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh , and joined as to all but the footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts . Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. [2] Click here for more information about the ruling.

The case : Angie Moriana brought a representative action—an action in which a plaintiff brings a lawsuit on behalf of others—against Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking) for violations of California labor code. Viking moved to dismiss the action, arguing that an arbitration agreement Moriana had signed as a condition of her employment required that all employment disputes be arbitrated. The trial court denied Viking's motion citing the California Supreme Court 's precedent in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014), finding arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring representative actions under California law unenforceable. After unsuccessful appeals to the California appellate courts, Viking appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the theory that the California Supreme Court's holding in Iskanian was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis . Click here to learn more about the case's background.
The issue: The case concerned a potential conflict between federal and state arbitration laws in certain types of arbitration proceedings.
The question presented : "Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under [the California Private Attorneys General Act]." [3]
The outcome : The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case came on a writ of certiorari to the California Second District Court of Appeal . To review the lower court's opinion, click here .

2 Background
3 Question presented
4.2 Transcript
5.1 Opinion
5.2.1 Justice Sotomayor
5.2.2 Justice Barrett
5.3 Dissenting opinion
5.4 Text of the opinion
6 October term 2021-2022
8 External links
9 Footnotes

The following timeline details key events in this case:

June 15, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
March 30, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
December 15, 2021 : The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
May 10, 2021 : Viking River Cruises appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
December 9, 2020 : The California Supreme Court denied Viking River Cruises' petition for review.
September 18, 2020 : The California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the state trial court's order denying Viking River Cruises' motion to compel arbitration.

Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking) and signed an arbitration agreement as a condition of her employment. The agreement "required Moriana to waive any right to bring a class, collective, representative, or private attorney general action" for any disputes arising from her employment with Viking. [4] It also contained a provision that gave the arbitrator power to address disagreements over the validity or scope of the agreement itself.

Moriana sued Viking in California state court "on behalf of the state and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, alleging various Labor Code violations in a single cause of action" under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). [4] Viking moved to dismiss Moriana's suit and force her to arbitrate her claim, based on the arbitration agreement Moriana signed. [4]

The trial court denied Viking's motion to dismiss and allowed Moriana's claim to proceed in court. The court cited the California Supreme Court 's 2014 holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC for precedent, which held that arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring representative actions under PAGA are unenforceable. A representative action is one in which a single representative—in this case, Moriana—brings an action on behalf of similarly-situated parties. Viking argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), which instructed federal courts to enforce individual arbitration agreements on their terms, overruled the California Supreme Court's holding in Iskanian . The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the interested party in PAGA representative claims is the state, not the individual defendant. In other words, the plaintiff is working as a proxy for the state and is not seeking individual relief on their own behalf. They are seeking the "recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the [state's] Labor Workforce Development Agency." [4]

Because the trial court found that the issue litigated in Epic was distinct from the facts of Iskanian , it held that Iskanian remained good law and applied it to the present case. On appeal, the California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed . [4] After the California Supreme Court denied Viking's request to take up the case, Viking appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 10, 2021. [3]

Question presented

The petitioner presented the following question to the court: [3]

Oral argument

Audio of oral argument: [6]

Your browser doesn't support the audio tag.

Transcript of oral argument: [7]

In an 8-1 ruling, the court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Iskanian because it prevents the division of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuits into individual and non-individual claims through an arbitration agreement. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh , and joined as to all but the footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts . Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. [2]

In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: [2]

Concurring opinion

Justice sotomayor.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote: [2]

Justice Barrett

Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh , and joined as to all but the footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts .

In her concurrence, Justice Barrett wrote: [2]

Dissenting opinion

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote: [2]

Text of the opinion

Read the full opinion here .

October term 2021-2022

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June. [9]

The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term . [10] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar . [11]

The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term . Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.

Supreme Court of the United States

History of the Supreme Court

External links

Search Google News for this topic
U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
SCOTUSblog case file for Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
↑ Joined the concurrence as to all but the footnote
↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 U.S. Supreme Court, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , decided June 15, 2022
↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 U.S. Supreme Court , "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed May 10, 2021
↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 California Second District Court of Appeal, Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. , decided September 18, 2020
↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 30, 2022
↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 30, 2022
↑ The same is true of Part I.
↑ SupremeCourt.gov , "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
↑ U.S. Supreme Court , "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021

Chief justice : Roberts Associate justices: Alito • Barrett • Gorsuch • Jackson • Kagan • Kavanaugh • Sotomayor • Thomas

Breyer • Kennedy • O'Connor • Souter

Burger • Chase • Ellsworth • Fuller • Hughes • Jay • Marshall • Rehnquist • Rutledge • Stone • Taft • Taney • Vinson • Waite • Warren •

Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Ginsburg • Goldberg • Gray • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods

Pages using DynamicPageList3 dplreplace parser function
United States Supreme Court
SCOTUS OT 2021
Decided SCOTUS cases
SCOTUS 8-1 opinions
SCOTUS majority opinions, Samuel Alito
SCOTUS dissenting opinions, Clarence Thomas

Ballotpedia features 457,717 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion.

Information about voting

What's on my ballot?
Where do I vote?
How do I register to vote?
How do I request a ballot?
When do I vote?
When are polls open?
Who represents me?

2024 Elections

Presidential election
Presidential candidates
Congressional elections
Ballot measures
State executive elections
State legislative elections
State judge elections
Local elections
School board elections

2025 Elections

State executives
State legislatures
State judges
Municipal officials
School boards
Election legislation tracking
State trifectas
State triplexes
Redistricting
Pivot counties
State supreme court partisanship
Polling indexes

Public Policy

Administrative state
Criminal justice policy
Education policy
Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
Unemployment insurance
Work requirements
Policy in the states

Information for candidates

Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
How do I run for office?
How do I update a page?
Election results
Send us candidate contact info

Get Engaged

Donate to Ballotpedia
Report an error
Newsletters
Ballotpedia podcast
Ballotpedia Boutique
Media inquiries
Premium research services
2024 Elections calendar
2024 Presidential election
Biden Administration
Recall elections
Ballotpedia News

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana " class="h-8 w-8 bg-blue rounded-full flex items-center justify-center text-white animate hover:text-green">

On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court held that a rule of California law that precludes dividing claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is inconsistent with the FAA. The decision was welcome news for WLF, which filed an amicus brief in the case urging reversal. Here the California Court of Appeal declined to enforce a representative-action waiver in the parties’ arbitration agreement based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles . In Iskanian , the court held that because PAGA claims are not divisible into constituent claims, courts need not enforce PAGA representative-action waivers. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal, explaining that a “state rule imposing an expansive rule of joinder in the arbitral context would defeat the ability of parties to control which claims are subject to arbitration.” That, in turn, would allow parties to add “new claims to the proceeding,” effectively coercing parties into withholding PAGA claims from arbitration. WLF’s brief was prepared with the pro bono assistance of Peder Batalden, Felix Shafir, and John Querio of Horvitz & Levy LLP.

U.S. Supreme Court opinion

WLF merits brief

WLF cert-stage brief

Related Press Releases

This site uses cookies for performance, site traffic analysis, and social media purposes. Find out more about our cookie policy here . You can adjust your preferences in cookie settings .

Stand Up for Free Enterprise

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status

Docket Number

Lower Court Opinion

California Court of Appeal

Questions Presented

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under PAGA.

Case Updates

Supreme Court holds that individual claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act are subject to arbitration

June 15, 2022

Click here to view the opinion.

U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief urging Supreme Court to hold that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s Iskanian rule, which creates an end-run around arbitration agreements for California Private Attorneys General Act claims

February 07, 2022

Click here to view the coalition amicus brief. Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami, Daniel E. Jones, and Carmen N. Longoria-Green of Mayer Brown LLP and the U.S. Chamber’s Litigation Center served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber.

The U.S. Chamber previously filed an amicus brief supporting the cert. petition.

Cert. petition granted

December 15, 2021

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief urging Supreme Court to grant petition for writ of certiorari and hold that the FAA preempts California’s Iskanian rule, which creates an end-run around arbitration agreements for PAGA claims

June 14, 2021

Click here to view the amicus brief. Andrew J. Pincus of Mayer Brown LLP and the U.S. Chamber’s Litigation Center served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber.

Case Documents

Appendix of Lower Court Opinions -- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief (cert.) -- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief (merits) -- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
Opinion -- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
Class Actions and Mass Actions
Arbitration
Search all cases

Recent case activity by issue

Administrative Law and Government Litigation
Capital Markets and Corporate Law
Energy and Environment
False Claims Act
Federal Preemption and Commerce Clause
Jurisdiction and Procedure
Labor and Employment
Privacy and Cybersecurity
Tort and Products Liability

This Report summarizes opinions issued on June 15, 2022 (Part I).

Opinion: Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , 20-1573

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , 20-1573. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to the extent state law precludes arbitration agreements from dividing PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims. PAGA allows an “aggrieved employee” to bring a representative action against her employer on behalf of the state for Labor Code violations against herself and other employees. Viking River Cruises included a waiver provision in its employment contract with Angie Moriana providing that in any arbitral proceeding the parties could not bring any dispute as a class, collective, or representative PAGA action. A severability clause stated that if the waiver was found invalid, any such action would be litigated in court, but any portion of the waiver that remained valid would be enforced in arbitration. Moriana filed a PAGA action in state court asserting wage violations against herself and other employees. Viking moved to compel arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim and to dismiss her claims relating to other employees. The trial court denied that motion, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed based on Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC , 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014), holding that categorical waivers of PAGA standing are contrary to state policy and that PAGA claims cannot be split into arbitrable individual claims and non-arbitrable non-individual claims. The Supreme Court reversed in an opinion by Justice Alito.

The California Legislature enacted PAGA to address a deficit in the enforcement of the state’s Labor Code by allowing employees to act as private attorneys general. PAGA actions are “representative” in two ways. First, the employee-plaintiff acts as an agent of the state. Under California law, PAGA does not create any private rights or private claims for relief. Instead, a PAGA suit is a representative qui tam action in which the employee acts as an agent of the state, which is “always the real party in interest.” Second, although the plaintiff must bring at least one “individual” claim involving herself, she may bring additional “non-individual” claims for Labor Code violations involving other employees. Iskanian prohibits waivers of the first type of representative claim as contrary to public policy; parties cannot waive an employee’s standing to bring a PAGA claim at all (either in court or arbitration). Iskanian also invalidates agreements to separately adjudicate individual and non-individual PAGA claims. Thus, under California law, the wholesale waiver of PAGA standing was invalid, and the severability clause ordinarily would send Moriana’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration and the non-individual claims to litigation (where it would be dismissed because, without an individual claim, Moriana would lack standing). But because California law ( Iskanian ) prohibits division of a PAGA action into individual and non-individual claims, the state courts refused to send Moriana’s claim to arbitration.

The Supreme Court explained that the FAA was enacted in response to judicial hostility to arbitration. Under the FAA, states cannot create rules that discriminate against arbitration, for example, by forbidding arbitration of a particular type of claim. Since arbitration is a matter of consent, parties may agree to arbitrate some claims and not others, and a party cannot be forced to submit to class arbitration unless the party contractually agreed to do so. Viking argued that Iskanian forces on parties the impermissible choice to either (1) arbitrate all disputes using a form of class procedure incompatible with the FAA and classic bilateral arbitration, or (2) not arbitrate at all. Meanwhile, Moriana argued that PAGA creates nothing more than a unitary private cause of action. The Court disagreed with both. Contrary to Moriana’s position, PAGA allows employees to assert multiple claims on behalf of the state. Viking, on the other hand, was incorrect that PAGA claims resemble class actions whose procedures are incompatible with arbitration. To the contrary, a PAGA action involves a single real party in interest bringing numerous claims, as opposed to one party bringing the same claim on behalf of multiple absent third parties. As such, PAGA actions need not consider issues inherent in class actions such as adequacy of representation, numerosity, commonality, or typicality. And although the prototypical form of arbitration is conducted by and on behalf of the two named parties, nothing in the FAA categorically prohibits an agent from litigating on behalf of a principal. Accordingly, found the Court, the FAA does not prohibit PAGA actions on the ground that it permits employees to bring representative actions on behalf of the state. To that extent, PAGA is valid and the waiver in this case was invalid.

But although parties may not contract away the right to bring a PAGA action at all, the Court found a conflict between the FAA and PAGA’s “built-in mechanism of claim joinder,” which allows an aggrieved employee to join violations suffered by other employees. California’s prohibition against contractually dividing individual and non-individual PAGA actions limits parties’ freedom to determine which issues are subject to arbitration, violating the principle that arbitration is a matter of consent. Although a party generally may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party, the FAA allows parties to individualize arbitration procedures even if bifurcated proceedings are the inevitable result. The Court held that Iskanian violates the FAA by preventing parties from agreeing to restrict the scope of arbitration. “The only way for parties to agree to arbitrate one of an employee’s PAGA claims is to also ‘agree’ to arbitrate all other PAGA claims in the same arbitral proceeding.” Iskanian therefore coerces parties into withholding PAGA claims from arbitration, which is incompatible with the FAA. Thus, “the FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.”

The Court reversed the California courts based on the contract in this case. The parties’ PAGA waiver was invalid to the extent it would prohibit Moriana from bringing PAGA claims at all. But based on the agreement’s severability clause, Viking was entitled to enforce the agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim. The lower courts refused to do so because California law prohibits dividing individual and non-individual claims, but that rule is preempted by the FAA because it would force Viking to arbitrate claims involving other employees. As the Court understood California law, PAGA “provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding.” Because Moriana’s individual claim must be severed from the other employees’ claims, she no longer has standing to maintain those claims in court, and the California court should dismiss those remaining claims.

Justice Sotomayor concurred, writing that “the Court’s opinion makes clear that California is not powerless to address its sovereign concern that it cannot adequately enforce its Labor Code without assistance from private attorneys general.” Justice Sotomayor noted that if the Court’s understanding of state law was wrong, and Moriana in fact has standing to enforce non-individual claims under PAGA, California courts “will have the last word.” Even if the Court correctly interpreted state law, the California Legislature “is free to modify the scope of statutory standing under PAGA within state and federal constitutional limits.”

Justice Barrett wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Kavanaugh and joined in part by Chief Justice Roberts. All three agreed that “PAGA’s procedure is akin to other aggregation devices that cannot be imposed on a party to an arbitration agreement,” but they believed that significant portions of the Court’s opinion were unnecessary and addressed disputed questions of state law as well as arguments that were not properly before the Court. Justice Thomas dissented, citing his previous dissents in which he expressed his view that the FAA does not apply to proceedings in state courts.

Supreme Court Report: Volume 30, Issue 8

Supreme court report: volume 30, issue 12, supreme court report: volume 30, issue 11, connect with naag and the attorney general community.

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Marble columns and the top of a federal building

Request an Update / Report an Error

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

Labor & Employment
ADR / Arbitration / Mediation
Litigation / Trial Practice
All Federal

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Case No. 20-1573) reversing the California Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm the denial of Viking’s motion to compel arbitration Moriana’s “individual” PAGA claim and to dismiss her other PAGA claims.

As previously reported , the question presented in Viking River Cruises involved whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC , 58 Cal.4th 380 (2014), which invalidates contractual waivers of representative claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that while Iskanian’s prohibition on “wholesale waivers” of PAGA claims is not preempted by the FAA, Iskanian’s rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into “individual” and “non-individual claims” is preempted.

Applying this holding to the parties, the Court held that Viking was entitled to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim. As for Moriana’s non-individual PAGA claims, because PAGA itself “provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding,” Moriana lacks “statutory standing” under PAGA to litigate her “non-individual” claims separately in state court. Accordingly, “the correct course is to dismiss her remaining claims.”

Current Legal Analysis

More from hunton andrews kurth, upcoming legal education events.

Newsletters
Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Supreme Court Screwed Over Workers Again—but Not As Badly As It Could Have

A mixed decision leaves some hope that blue states can still combat wage theft..

Since the mid-1980s, corporations have been laser-focused on gutting workers’ ability to enforce fundamental workplace protections in courts. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed them a big win—albeit one that holds out a glimmer of hope for states seeking to enforce their laws.

In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , the court held that the Federal Arbitration Act—a 1925 law intended to aid enforcement of contracts to arbitrate conflicts between businesses in commercial transactions—preempts a California rule that has allowed workers to hold lawbreaking employers accountable for workplace-wide violations before judges and juries. The decision represents yet another blow to workers from a Supreme Court dominated by corporate interests.

How did we get here? Decades of underfunding and understaffing left federal and state agencies unable to fully enforce labor standards. Employers took advantage of a deregulated economy, and wage theft was at epidemic levels throughout the country in the 2000s. One study found that 26 percent of low-paid workers in three cities were paid less than the legally required minimum wage, that 19 percent had unpaid or underpaid overtime violations, and that 68 percent had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous week. Another study estimated that employers stole $50 billion per year from workers’ wages.

In response to the labor standards underenforcement crisis, California passed the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the law at the heart of Viking River Cruises . As several amicus briefs in the case highlighted, PAGA was enacted to expand the state’s workplace enforcement capacity and root out workplace-wide violations by allowing workers to seek civil penalties for violations and empowering them to seek penalties for all violations across a workplace in a single lawsuit. The lion’s share of the penalties (75 percent) goes to the state, with the remainder distributed among affected workers.

Sign Up for the Surge

The most important political nonsense of the week, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.

Thanks for signing up! You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time.

PAGA gives California workers—and the attorneys who represent them—an important tool to root out workplace-wide violations and deter employer lawbreaking. At the same time, it generates revenue for the state to fund future enforcement work aimed at creating a culture of compliance in industries with historically high rates of violations. One report found that PAGA improved employer compliance, generated over $88 million in revenue in 2019 alone, and funded a significant number of state Labor Department positions and enforcement initiatives.

Unfortunately, corporations had already been working to limit worker lawsuits—the other critical component of workplace law enforcement—through forced arbitration provisions and class action waivers. A series of Supreme Court decisions transformed the 1925 Arbitration Act into a shield that allowed corporations to unilaterally impose arbitration provisions on their employees and shunt workers’ cases into private, secret arbitration—despite ample evidence that Congress did not intend the law to apply to employment contracts. Most egregiously, in 2018 the court’s conservative majority held in Epic Systems v. Lewis that class and collective action waivers included in arbitration provisions were enforceable—meaning that where employers imposed such provisions, they could force workers to proceed one by one.

As a direct result of the Supreme Court’s misreading of the Federal Arbitration Act, forced arbitration provisions and class action waivers are now everywhere, imposed when workers start a job, or at any time after they’ve been hired, but usually buried in fine print. In forced arbitration, there’s no judge or jury. Instead, an arbitrator—typically a corporate lawyer or a former judge—is paid by the hour to adjudicate a claim. Workers lack the protections of being in court, including the right to fully discover information in the employer’s possession and the right to appeal. More than 60 million workers are now subject to forced arbitration provisions, including over 59 percent of Black workers and nearly 58 percent of women workers, and the number is expected to dramatically increase . And because most workers subject to forced arbitration abandon their claims rather than proceed alone in a stacked forum, forced arbitration is helping employers pocket billions in stolen wages.

That brings us to Viking River Cruises . California’s Supreme Court had adopted a rule, in the Iskanian case, recognizing that a worker who brings a PAGA action to root out workplace-wide violations is doing so on behalf of the state. And because the state was not a party to any arbitration provision, the worker’s PAGA claims—for both violations that affected them personally and for workplace-wide violations that affected other workers—could not be sent to arbitration. This allowed PAGA suits to continue, and because PAGA penalties can become quite substantial—for example, $100 per violation per affected worker, per pay period—employers can face hefty costs for violating the law. In that way, PAGA has proved a major deterrent for employer lawbreaking.

That’s why Viking River Cruises (and a host of massive corporations, including Uber ) attacked the California rule. They did so by arguing that PAGA actions were nothing but a type of class action. Viking River Cruises insisted that because of the class action waiver it had imposed on the worker in the case, Angie Moriana, it could force her to waive any ability to bring a PAGA claim for violations that affected other workers, both in court and in arbitration, per the court’s 2018 Epic Systems decision. Because any one worker’s PAGA claim will be low, and the worker will only recover 25 percent of it themselves, such a rule would eliminate the incentive for a worker subject to a forced arbitration provision to bring a PAGA action in the first place.

The court’s decision, an 8–1 result, did not go as far as the corporations wanted—in part, perhaps, because it was tempered by the liberal justices. But the decision still deals a serious blow to PAGA as currently enacted and interpreted. Since PAGA claims cannot be split up, the court said California had coerced employers into giving up their right to arbitrate their PAGA claims on an individual, one-by-one basis in arbitrations, and that the FAA therefore preempted California’s rule in Iskanian . As a result, Viking River Cruises can force Moriana, and workers like her, to take their individual PAGA claim into arbitration.

It’s breathtaking to see the court evince such deep concern about the allegedly coercive effects of PAGA for employers while ignoring the coercion inherent when employers impose forced arbitration onto workers as a condition of employment.

The court’s decision is, for now, not all bad news for employees. The majority indicated that while Viking River Cruises could force Moriana to arbitrate her individual claim, it could not completely extinguish the claims she had filed on behalf of the state for violations affecting other workers. However, because the majority determined that PAGA does not allow a worker to continue a suit only for claims affecting other workers, those other claims must be dismissed. But the majority left some room for California to make changes to PAGA. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor elaborated in her concurring opinion, California courts or the state legislature can clarify that workers may still litigate their non-individual claims—that is, their claims for violations affecting other workers—even if their individual PAGA claims are sent to arbitration.

Some are interpreting these limitations on the court’s holding as a sign that PAGA can survive as an effective tool for enforcement of workplace protections. Advocates should absolutely seize on those limitations and fight to restore California’s capacity to hold lawbreaking corporations accountable for workplace-wide violations. And they should do the same in states like New York, which has also been considering a bill inspired by PAGA .

But we should be concerned with a newly constituted Supreme Court that has shown itself to have no regard for precedent and to be utterly willing to use its power to achieve its desired results. Any limitations suggested by the majority in Viking River Cruises do not signal such limitations will be respected in the future, no matter what the majority or Justice Sotomayor says. (Notably, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh refused to join these potentially limiting portions of the opinion.)

All told, Viking River Cruises underscores the need for legislative reform to the Federal Arbitration Act. Congress made a significant step forward this year by restoring workers’ rights to go before judges and juries, and to do so collectively, in sexual harassment and assault cases. Now it must finish what it started by passing the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act.

In the meantime, agencies can act to protect workers. For example, the Department of Labor can roll back Trump-era guidance that the agency deprioritize workplaces with forced arbitration and instead publicly signal that it is directing enforcement resources toward such workplaces, particularly in sectors where compliance is low. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should reinstate that agency’s enforcement guidance on forced arbitration, which the agency rescinded in the Trump era. These actions would send powerful messages to employers that their use of forced arbitration will only invite more scrutiny.

Public Citizen

JOIN THE MOVEMENT Get Updates Valid email is required

medium"> Donate

Giving Through Your Will
Gift of Stocks or Mutual Funds
Tax-Deductible Giving
Charitable Gift Annuities
Gifts From Your Retirement Account
Life Insurance Donations

What are you looking for? Search

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) creates a right of action in which individual employees bring suit on behalf of the State to recover penalties from employers for violations of California’s Labor Code. In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles , 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014), the California Supreme Court held that the right to bring a PAGA action cannot be waived prospectively, whether in an arbitration agreement or any other type of contract. In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. , 803 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit agreed with the California Supreme Court that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt Iskanian ’s holding, because Iskanian does not prohibit arbitration of specific types of claims or otherwise disfavor arbitration. In the years since, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denied petitions for certiorari that argued that those decisions were wrongly decided.

In this case, an employee of Viking River Cruises sued the company in state court under PAGA claiming widespread violations of California wage and hour laws. The company sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement that purports to forbid an employee from bringing any private attorney general action. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal, applying Iskanian , held that the waiver of PAGA claims was unenforceable and that the PAGA claims could proceed in court. The California Supreme Court denied review. Viking then filed a petition for certiorari, and Public Citizen, serving as co-counsel for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court, prepared the brief in opposition to the petition.

After the Court granted the petition, Public Citizen served as co-counsel at the merits stage. In a fractured decision issued in June 2022, the Court held that an arbitration agreement cannot provide for a waiver of a plaintiff’s right to bring a representative claim on behalf of the state for the violations that affected her. However, the Court treated the state’s PAGA claim for penalties involving multiple violations as multiple claims and held that an arbitration agreement can prohibit aggregating those claims. Accordingly, although it held that Viking River could not use an arbitration provision to bar a plaintiff from asserting a PAGA claim on behalf of the state for the violations directed at her, it could bar her from asserting PAGA claims on behalf of the state for violations affecting multiple employees. Thus, although the Court agreed in large part with our arguments, the bottom line was a loss for plaintiffs seeking to assert PAGA claims. Because, however, the Court’s disposition of the case rested on two issues of state law that were outside the question presented, were not briefed by the parties, were inconsistent with a definitive ruling of the state’s highest court, and could not in any event be authoritatively resolved by the Supreme Court, we petitioned for rehearing to the extent that the decision rested on those state-law issues. The Court denied the petition.

On remand, the state appellate court ordered that the individual claim be sent to arbitration. As to the non-individual claim, the court explained that the trial court could either hold that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue it, as the Supreme Court had assumed, determine that the plaintiff had standing, or stay the case pending the outcome of another case pending in the California Supreme Court on a similar issue.

Stay Updated on Public Citizen

Follow public citizen, support our work.

Breaking News

Petitions of the week

Rideshare companies ask justices to reexamine california worker-protection law.

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here .

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana was a victory for employers seeking to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in the face of a landmark California worker-protection law. The court found that the California law was inconsistent with the federal arbitration law’s broad mandate that courts enforce arbitration agreements. This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether California courts are correct that the law, despite the decision in Viking River , nonetheless allows workers to keep disputes in court.

Twenty years ago, California enacted the Private Attorneys General Act, which allows workers to file lawsuits – on their own behalf and on behalf of other employees – against their employers for any violations of the California labor code. These lawsuits are known as representative actions because the employee is suing in place of the state, which receives the bulk of any money awarded as a result of the lawsuit; the remaining funds are distributed among affected workers.

Johnathon Gregg signed up to drive with Uber in California in 2016. When setting up his account, he did not opt out of Uber’s arbitration agreement, which asks drivers to waive their right to bring lawsuits under the PAGA, specifically, and agree more broadly to address disputes with Uber in arbitration, rather than in court, on an individual basis.

Two years later, Gregg filed a lawsuit in California state court. He argued that, under the PAGA, Uber had violated state law by classifying him and other drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.

Uber sought to enforce the arbitration agreement. The state courts ruled in favor of Gregg, following a decision by the California Supreme Court that voided mandatory arbitration agreements requiring workers to waive their rights under the PAGA.

Uber asked the justices to review the state court’s ruling. While its petition was pending, the court issued its decision in Viking River , holding that the PAGA is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act’s sweeping requirement for courts to enforce arbitration agreements. An eight-justice majority ruled that, when an employment contract contains an arbitration clause, that clause must be enforced against an employee’s right to bring a claim on behalf of themselves under the PAGA.

Five justices went further, concluding that once a worker’s individual claim goes to arbitration, the representative claims should be dismissed because they no longer have a right to sue – known as standing – for injuries against other workers on behalf of the state under the PAGA. In joining that second holding, however, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately to emphasize that “if this Court’s understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word.”

After Viking River , the justices sent Gregg’s case back to the California courts. A state appeals court granted Uber’s request to have the question whether Gregg should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor under California law decided by an arbitrator. But it rejected Uber’s request to go further and toss the representative claims as well.

The California appeals court held that the five-justice majority in Viking River got the state-law question wrong. Once Gregg was compelled to arbitrate his own claim, the state court concluded, he did not lose the ability to bring representative claims under the PAGA. Instead, the court reasoned, those claims should be put on hold until an arbitrator decides whether Uber wrongly classified Gregg as an independent contractor; if so, Gregg could then resume his effort to seek the same relief for other Uber drivers in court. And that arrangement is consistent with the FAA, the state appeals court reasoned, because it still permits the separation of Gregg’s individual, arbitrable claim into a “separate and distinct action[].”

In Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Gregg , the rideshare company asks the justices to reverse the state court’s ruling. Uber argues that the core of Viking River was a recognition that the FAA respects agreements to arbitrate in separate, individual proceedings, and that California courts may not evade that federal mandate by reinterpreting the PAGA. “This Court should grant review,” the company writes, “and put a stop to the California courts’ end-run of the FAA and Viking River .”

In Lyft, Inc. v. Seifu , rival rideshare company Lyft, which also considers its drivers to be contractors and asks them to agree to a similar arbitration clause when enrolling, asks the justices to grant review of and reverse a decision by another California appeals court holding that a driver could maintain a representative action under the PAGA while an arbitrator decides their individual claim to be reclassified as an employee.

A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:

John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education 23-601 Issues : (1) Whether, when a public school, by policy, expressly targets parents to deceive them about how the school will treat their minor children, parents have standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief in anticipation of the school applying its policy against them; and (2) whether, assuming the parents have standing, a school policy that requires school employees to hide from parents that their child is transitioning gender at school if, in the child’s or the school’s estimation, the parents will not be “supportive” enough of the transition, violates their fundamental parental rights.

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Gregg 23-645 Issue : Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires the complete severance of arbitrable individual claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act from non-individual claims, with the individual claims committed to a separate proceeding.

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission 23-704 Issues : (1) Whether a fundamental change in decisional law can independently support relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) ; and (2) whether the Federal Trade Commission can obtain compensatory equitable remedies as sanctions for civil contempt of a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act when those remedies are not directly available under Section 13(b).

Rose v. PSA Airlines, Inc. 23-734 Issue : Whether non-tracing monetary remedies, such as surcharge, are available under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) to plan participants and beneficiaries asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Israelitt v. Enterprise Services LLC 23-776 Issue : Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act provides for damages (and therefore a trial by jury) in cases alleging that an employer has violated the act’s anti-retaliation provision .

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Cases: John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education , Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Gregg , Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission , Rose v. PSA Airlines, Inc. , Israelitt v. Enterprise Services LLC

Recommended Citation: Kalvis Golde, Rideshare companies ask justices to reexamine California worker-protection law , SCOTUSblog (Apr. 10, 2024, 11:52 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/rideshare-companies-ask-justices-to-reexamine-california-worker-protection-law/

Privacy Overview

Thornell v. Jones Oral Argument

The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Thornell v. Jones , a Habeas Corpus review petition.

Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.

Hosting Organization

U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court

Airing Details

Harrow v. Department of Defense Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense , a case concerning employment law.

<em>Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin</em> Consolidated Oral Argument

Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Consolidated Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , a consolidated case on unused MoneyGram…

Shoop v. Twyford Oral Argument

The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Shoop v. Twyford , a case on habeas corpus relief.

<em>Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana</em> Oral Argument

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , a case on civil procedure and California…

IMAGES

Viking River Cruises v. Angie Moriana: The case that brought down PAGA
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Viking River
[Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana] Oral Argument
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana: The Supreme Court favors arbitration
U.S. Supreme Court
BREAKING: Supreme Court Reverses California Court of Appeal in Viking

COMMENTS

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Brief of respondent Angie Moriana in opposition filed. Sep 28 2021: Reply of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed. Nov 23 2021: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021. Dec 15 2021: Petition GRANTED. Jan 04 2022: Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Viking River Cruises, Inc. Jan 13 2022: Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Angie ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
From 2016 to 2017, Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises, Inc. ("Viking"), a company that globally operates and sells trips on ocean and river cruise lines. Brief for the Petitioner, Viking River Cruises, Inc., at 12.Before commencing her employment, Moriana signed an agreement with the company that required any dispute arising out of the employment to be ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana: An employer is entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement with respect to an individual employee who attempted to bring a "representative action" under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts California precedent that precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Facts of the case. Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises, Inc., and agreed to submit any dispute arising out of her employment to binding arbitration. Notwithstanding that agreement, Moriana sued Viking on behalf of herself and similarly situated workers under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General ...
PDF Supreme Court of the United States
VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. Petitioner, v. ANGIE MORIANA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF RESTAURANT LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. June 14, 2021 TODD B. SCHERWIN Counsel of Record FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP ALDEN J. PARKER
Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc.
Angie Moriana sued her former employer Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking), seeking recovery of civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). Viking moved to compel Moriana's PAGA claims to arbitration, arguing that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp. v.
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Clarence Thomas. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on March 30, 2022. In an 8-1 ruling, the court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act. Background [ edit ] In its 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Supreme Court Report: Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 20-1573
This Report summarizes an opinion issued on December 10, 2021 (Part I); and cases granted review on December 10 and 15, 2021 (Part II).. Cases Granted Review: Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 20-1573 Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 20-1573. The question presented is "[w]hether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an ...
Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc.
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. __[142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179] (Viking River), the United States Supreme Court rejected the portion of the California Supreme Court's decision in Iskanian that prohibited employers from compelling arbitration of an employee's individual PAGA claims, as distinct from the non-individual claims the employee alleges on behalf of other ...
Search
Search documents in this case: Search. No. 20-1573 : Title: Viking River Cruises, Inc., Petitioner v. Angie Moriana: Docketed: May 13, 2021: Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District: ... Brief of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed. Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service:
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana Case. Issues: Arbitration ... -action waiver in the parties' arbitration agreement based on the California Supreme Court's decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles. ... WLF's brief was prepared with the pro bono assistance of Peder Batalden, Felix Shafir, and John Querio of Horvitz ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Supreme Court holds that individual claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act are subject to arbitration. The U.S. Chamber filed two amicus briefs supporting this outcome, which will help curb abusive class actions.
PDF Pages 639-665
VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. v. MORIANA . certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district . No. 20-1573. Argued March 30, 2022—Decided June 15, 2022 . The question for decision is whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 . et seq., preempts a rule of California law that invalidates contractual
Supreme Court Report: Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 20-1573
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 20-1573. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to the extent state law precludes arbitration agreements from dividing PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims. PAGA allows an "aggrieved employee ...
Supreme Court Reverses California Appeal in Viking River Cruises
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Case No. 20-1573) reversing the California Court of Appeal's decision to affirm the denial ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S.___, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1916 (Viking River Cruises), the United States Supreme Court held that all PAGA actions are "representative" in that the plaintiff either is a representative of the State or of other employees. Summary of this case from Moreno v. UniSource Sols.
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana: The Supreme Court favors arbitration
Viking River Cruises insisted that because of the class action waiver it had imposed on the worker in the case, Angie Moriana, it could force her to waive any ability to bring a PAGA claim for ...
Docket for 20-1573
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Viking River Cruises, Inc. Blanket Consent: Jan 13 2022: Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Angie Moriana: Blanket Consent: Jan 28 2022: ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, March 30, 2022. Jan 31 2022: Brief of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed. Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service ...
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana Oral Argument
Oral Argument. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, a case on civil procedure and California state law. United States ar e admonished to dr aw nearer and ...
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana
In the years since, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denied petitions for certiorari that argued that those decisions were wrongly decided. In this case, an employee of Viking River Cruises sued the company in state court under PAGA claiming widespread violations of California wage and hour laws. The company sought to compel arbitration ...
Rideshare companies ask justices to reexamine California worker
The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we're watching is available here.. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v.Moriana was a victory for employers seeking to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in the face of a landmark California worker-protection law.
[Thornell v. Jones] Oral Argument
The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Shoop v. Twyford, a case on habeas corpus relief. March 30, 2022 Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana Oral Argument.

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Issues

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Facts

Analysis

PROCEDURAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE FAA AND PAGA

Discussion

REMEDIES FOR EMPLOYEES

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Get Email Updates from Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia on Facebook

Ballotpedia on Twitter

Question presented

Oral argument

Concurring opinion

Justice Barrett

Dissenting opinion

Text of the opinion

October term 2021-2022

External links

Information about voting

2024 Elections

2025 Elections

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

SITE NAVIGATION

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Related Press Releases

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Questions Presented

Case Updates

Case Documents

Recent case activity by issue

Opinion: Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , 20-1573

Related Posts

Supreme Court Report: Volume 30, Issue 8

Request an Update / Report an Error

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

Current Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court Screwed Over Workers Again—but Not As Badly As It Could Have

Sign Up for the Surge

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

Stay Updated on Public Citizen

Breaking News

Petitions of the week

A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:

Privacy Overview

Thornell v. Jones Oral Argument

Hosting Organization

Airing Details

Harrow v. Department of Defense Oral Argument

Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Consolidated Oral Argument

Shoop v. Twyford Oral Argument

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana Oral Argument

IMAGES

COMMENTS