Williams v. Superior Court
237 Cal. App. 4th 642
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Andre Williams filed a single-count representative action under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) alleging Pinkerton failed to provide required off-duty rest periods.
- Williams had signed an arbitration agreement that included a waiver of class and representative actions but allowed an employee to opt out without retaliation.
- Pinkerton moved to enforce the representative-PAGA waiver or, alternatively, to compel arbitration of the “underlying” individual rest-period dispute and to sever/stay the remaining PAGA claim.
- The trial court denied enforcement of the PAGA waiver but ordered arbitration of the threshold question whether Williams was an “aggrieved employee,” severing and staying the PAGA claim pending arbitration.
- Williams petitioned for a writ directing the trial court to vacate the arbitration order; the Court of Appeal agreed and granted the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Pinkerton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of a pre-dispute waiver of the right to bring representative PAGA claims | Waiver is unenforceable under California law; PAGA claims are public-rights and unwaivable | Waiver is voluntary here (opt-out allowed) and thus should be enforceable | Waiver unenforceable; Iskanian control; voluntariness/opt-out does not save it |
| Whether a single representative PAGA cause of action can be split so the underlying individual issue is arbitrated | Single PAGA claim cannot be bifurcated; requiring arbitration of whether plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” effectively compels resolution of the PAGA claim in arbitration | Arbitrating the individual merits (whether Williams suffered a rest-period violation) is permissible under FAA and does not resolve representative issues concerning other employees | A single representative PAGA claim cannot be split; the court may not compel arbitration of the alleged underlying violation as a separate, arbitrable “individual” claim |
| Applicability of Iskanian when arbitration agreement was not imposed as a condition of employment | Iskanian bars waivers regardless of whether agreement was a condition of employment | Iskanian inapplicable because the waiver here was voluntary and allowed opt-out without adverse consequences | Iskanian applies; voluntariness/opt-out does not change public-policy rule against PAGA waivers |
| Scope of arbitration clause and severance/stay under CCP §1281.2 | Arbitration clause cannot be used to partially force arbitration of the representative PAGA claim | The arbitration clause broadly covers employment disputes and allows severance and stay of the PAGA claim pending arbitration | Court cannot compel arbitration of any portion of the representative PAGA claim; severance/arbitration order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (PAGA representative-waiver unenforceable)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (PAGA actions are representative and enforce penalties on behalf of the state)
- Reyes v. Macy’s, Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 1119 (a PAGA claim is representative and not an individual claim subject to arbitration)
- Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.4th 1109 (PAGA waiver unenforceable even if agreement was not a condition of employment)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (binding precedent rule)