Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
14 Cal.5th 1104
Cal.2023Background:
- Erik Adolph, an Uber Eats driver, was bound by a technology services agreement requiring individual-only arbitration and containing a PAGA representative-action waiver with a severability clause.
- Adolph sued Uber alleging misclassification and reimbursement violations, then amended to add a PAGA claim for civil penalties on behalf of himself and other employees.
- The trial court previously compelled arbitration of Adolph’s individual Labor Code claims; Adolph then dismissed individual claims and proceeded with a PAGA-only complaint and obtained a preliminary injunction preventing arbitration.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction under Iskanian; before this Court’s review, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Viking River, which required arbitration of a PAGA plaintiff’s individual claims when covered by the FAA and held such plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue non-individual claims in court.
- This California Supreme Court case asks whether a PAGA plaintiff compelled to arbitrate his individual claims nevertheless retains statutory standing to litigate non-individual (representative) PAGA claims in court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PAGA plaintiff loses standing to pursue non-individual claims in court if his individual claims are compelled to arbitration | Adolph: Standing is statutory—an "aggrieved employee" means one employed by the violator and against whom a violation was committed; arbitration does not erase that status | Uber: Under Viking River, PAGA permits non-individual claims only if the plaintiff also maintains an individual claim in the same action; compelling arbitration removes that basis for standing | Court: No — statutory standing depends only on being an aggrieved employee; compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip standing to pursue non-individual claims in court |
| Whether bifurcating individual and representative components into arbitration and court proceedings severs the action and requires independent standing for the remaining court action | Adolph: Bifurcation does not sever the single PAGA action; courts may stay or proceed across forums without creating a separate action | Uber: Bifurcation effectively creates a separate suit for non-individual claims that lacks the plaintiff’s individual-claim basis for standing | Court: Bifurcation (or piecemeal adjudication) does not sever the cause; FAA and state law permit piecemeal resolution and the original PAGA action’s standing endures |
| Whether allowing court litigation of non-individual claims will improperly relitigate the plaintiff’s aggrieved status contrary to arbitration agreement | Adolph: Court can stay non-individual claims pending arbitration; arbitrator’s decision on individual status can be confirmed and binding | Uber: Permitting court to decide standing relitigates issues the parties agreed to arbitrate | Court: No conflict—procedures (stay, confirmation/vacatur) avoid improper relitigation; Viking River limits relitigation where FAA applies |
| Whether redressability or a continuing financial stake is required to maintain PAGA standing after individual claims are resolved in arbitration | Adolph: Standing derives from statutory status as aggrieved employee, not from a forum-specific financial interest | Uber: If plaintiff obtains relief in arbitration, he lacks a financial stake and thus cannot continue non-individual claims | Court: Statute contains no redressability or financial-stake requirement; status as aggrieved employee suffices; attorney-fee structure may provide continued stake |
Key Cases Cited
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) (state rule invalidating predispute waivers of PAGA representative claims)
- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. _ (2022) (U.S. Supreme Court: FAA compels arbitration of PAGA plaintiff’s individual claims and held plaintiff lacked standing to continue non-individual claims in court)
- Kim v. Reins Int’l California, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (2020) (PAGA standing defined by §2699(c): employment plus at least one violation; settlement or time-bar does not defeat standing)
- ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.5th 175 (2019) (PAGA actions are law-enforcement actions; plaintiff acts as the state’s proxy)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (legislative purpose of PAGA to augment LWDA enforcement; judgments bind nonparty aggrieved employees)
- Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA allows piecemeal resolution; arbitrable claims may be compelled even if separate proceedings result)
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (FAA requires arbitration of arbitrable claims despite possibly inefficient separate proceedings)