Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
An employee who is compelled to arbitrate the individual PAGA claim still retains standing to litigate the non-individual (representative) PAGA claims in court — rejecting the standing analysis in Viking River.
Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104
PAGA
Arbitration
Standing
Representative Claims
Affirmed
In brief. Completing the PAGA trilogy, the Court held that compelling arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim does not strip the plaintiff of standing to pursue the non-individual representative claims in court. A plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” with PAGA standing if “(1) [the plaintiff] was employed by the alleged violator, and (2) . . . one or more of the alleged violations was committed” against the plaintiff — and “an order compelling arbitration of [the] individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing . . . to litigate non-individual claims.” (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114, 1121.) This rejects the standing conclusion of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 as a matter of California law. (Id. at pp. 1117–1123.)
Facts
Erik Adolph worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats. (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1113–1114.) He brought a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), alleging Uber misclassified him and other drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, resulting in Labor Code violations including unreimbursed business expenses. (Ibid.) Adolph had agreed to arbitration, and Uber moved to compel arbitration of his individual PAGA claim. (Ibid.) The dispute — arising after Viking River — was whether sending the individual claim to arbitration deprived Adolph of standing to maintain the representative PAGA claims in court. (Id. at pp. 1114–1117.)
Procedural history
The trial court denied Uber’s motion to compel, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1116–1117.) The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve the PAGA-standing question left open after Viking River — which had said California courts would have “the last word” on the issue — and affirmed, holding the plaintiff retains representative standing. (Id. at pp. 1117, 1123–1124.)
Issue
Does a plaintiff who is compelled to arbitrate the individual component of a PAGA claim lose standing, as an “aggrieved employee,” to litigate the non-individual (representative) PAGA claims in court? (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1113–1114.)
Holding
No. PAGA standing turns on being an “aggrieved employee” — “(1) someone who was employed by the alleged violator and (2) against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” (14 Cal.5th at p. 1114.) “[A]n order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.” (Id. at pp. 1114, 1121.) Where the individual claim is sent to arbitration, the trial court “may exercise its discretion to stay the non-individual claims pending the outcome of the arbitration.” (Id. at pp. 1123–1124.) Affirmed. (Id. at p. 1124.)
Reasoning
1. PAGA’s statutory standing test. The Court returned to the text. Standing under PAGA requires only that the plaintiff be an “aggrieved employee” — defined by employment by the alleged violator and the commission of at least one alleged Labor Code violation against the plaintiff. (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1117–1120; Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (c).) Nothing in that definition conditions standing on the forum in which the individual claim is litigated. (Ibid.) The Court emphasized PAGA’s enforcement design: an aggrieved employee, once having complied with PAGA’s pre-suit notice requirements (Lab. Code, § 2699.3), is “deputized to prosecute Labor Code violations” and “has authority to seek any civil penalties the state can.” (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1117–1119.) Standing flows from the plaintiff’s status as a victim of a violation and the state’s deputization, not from the procedural posture of the individual claim. (Ibid.)
1a. The lesson of Kim v. Reins. The Court drew directly on Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, which had held that an employee who settles and dismisses his individual Labor Code damages claims still “remains an aggrieved employee” with PAGA standing. (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1119–1121.) As Kim explained, “the question of standing to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations is governed by PAGA’s own definition of ‘aggrieved employee,’” not by what happens to the individual damages claim. (Id. at pp. 1119–1120.) If extinguishing the individual damages claim by settlement does not defeat PAGA standing, the Court reasoned, then merely sending the individual PAGA claim to a different forum (arbitration) cannot either. (Ibid.)
2. Arbitration does not change the plaintiff’s status. Sending the individual claim to arbitration “does not nullify the fact of the violation or extinguish the plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee.” (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1120–1121.) The plaintiff remains a person against whom a Labor Code violation was allegedly committed; arbitration merely resolves where the individual claim is adjudicated, not whether the plaintiff is aggrieved. (Ibid.) The Court declined to follow Viking River’s contrary reading of California standing law, which the high court itself had acknowledged was not authoritative on the state-law question. (Id. at pp. 1117–1123.)
3. Sequencing and stays. The Court explained how the bifurcated structure operates. The individual PAGA claim proceeds in arbitration; the representative claims are stayed in court pending that arbitration. (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1123–1124.) If the arbitrator determines the plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee (e.g., no violation occurred), that finding — once confirmed — may be binding and defeat the plaintiff’s standing to continue the representative action. (Ibid.) But if the plaintiff prevails or the issue is otherwise resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the representative claims proceed. (Ibid.)
4. Harmonizing the trilogy. The Court situated its holding within the post-Concepcion framework. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 bars wholesale PAGA waivers; Viking River permits compelling the individual PAGA claim to arbitration; and Adolph confirms the representative claims survive in court. (14 Cal.5th at pp. 1117–1123.) Together they preserve PAGA as a public-enforcement mechanism even where individual claims are arbitrated. (Ibid.)
Significance
Adolph is the capstone of the PAGA-arbitration trilogy and a decisive win for the continued vitality of PAGA. By holding that arbitration of the individual claim does not destroy representative standing, it neutralized much of the practical effect of Viking River: employers can carve out and arbitrate the individual PAGA claim, but the representative action — and its aggregate penalty exposure — remains in court. The decision defines the now-standard bifurcated procedure (arbitrate the individual claim; stay the representative claims) and the binding effect of the arbitrator’s aggrieved-employee determination. It must be read with Iskanian and Viking River, and against the backdrop of the 2024 PAGA reforms (Assem. Bill 2288; Sen. Bill 92), which revised penalties, cure procedures, and manageability. Adolph is now the first authority on PAGA standing after arbitration. See the Review’s coverage of the PAGA and arbitration lines.
Key quotes
A plaintiff has PAGA standing as an aggrieved employee if “(1) [the plaintiff] was employed by the alleged violator and (2) . . . one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” (Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1114.)
“[A]n order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.” (Id. at p. 1121.)
Practice pointer
Keep the representative claims alive. After Adolph, when a defendant compels the individual PAGA claim to arbitration under Viking River, the plaintiff retains standing to litigate the non-individual claims in court — so resist dismissal and request a stay of the representative claims pending the arbitration. Plaintiffs should preserve the aggrieved-employee showing, recognizing that an arbitrator’s adverse finding on whether any violation occurred can, once confirmed, undercut standing. Defendants should sequence the arbitration to test the individual claim first and preserve issue-preclusion arguments. Layer in the 2024 PAGA reforms (penalty caps and reductions for compliance, expanded cure, manageability) and confirm the arbitration agreement actually permits division of the PAGA claim.
Open questions
Open issues include the precise preclusive effect of an arbitrator’s aggrieved-employee determination on representative standing, the management and timing of stays, the manageability of large representative PAGA actions at trial, and how the 2024 PAGA amendments interact with the Adolph framework. The continuing friction between the FAA and PAGA’s public-enforcement design guarantees further development.
See also: Turrieta v. Lyft · Stone v. Alameda Health System · Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756 v. Superior Court · Westmoreland v. Kindercare