Adolph v. Uber: PAGA Standing After Viking River

In July 2023, the California Supreme Court decided Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a case that addressed a critical unanswered question left open by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. While Viking River reshaped how arbitration agreements interact with the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), it left uncertainty about whether an employee who is compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims retains standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court. Adolph squarely answered that question under California law.

PAGA allows an “aggrieved employee” to bring an enforcement action on behalf of the State of California to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. The statute defines an aggrieved employee as someone who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom at least one Labor Code violation was committed. Long before Adolph, California courts emphasized that a PAGA action is fundamentally a law-enforcement action, with the state as the real party in interest and the employee acting as the state’s proxy.

In Viking River, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California law to the extent it prohibits enforcement of agreements requiring arbitration of an employee’s individual PAGA claims. The Court further reasoned that, under its understanding of California law, once an employee’s individual PAGA claim is sent to arbitration, the employee would generally lack standing to pursue the remaining non-individual PAGA claims in court. Importantly, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged that California courts would have the final word on questions of state statutory standing.

That final word came in Adolph. The California Supreme Court held that an employee who is compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims does not lose standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court. The Court explained that PAGA standing depends on whether the employee was subjected to at least one Labor Code violation, not on whether the employee’s individual claims are being litigated in court or resolved in another forum.

Central to the Court’s reasoning was the statutory text. Labor Code section 2699 defines standing in simple terms, and the Court declined to read additional requirements into the statute. Compelling arbitration of individual claims does not erase the fact that a violation allegedly occurred, nor does it strip the employee of “aggrieved employee” status. The Court emphasized that standing is based on the existence of a violation, not on whether the employee currently has an unresolved individual claim pending in court.

The Court also rejected the argument that sending individual claims to arbitration effectively severs the PAGA action into separate lawsuits. Instead, it explained that arbitration and court proceedings may proceed in parallel as part of a single action, with courts retaining discretion to stay non-individual PAGA claims while arbitration is pending. This approach is consistent with both California arbitration law and long-standing federal principles requiring enforcement of arbitration agreements even when they result in bifurcated proceedings.

In practical terms, Adolph clarified that Viking River did not eliminate representative PAGA actions. While employers may compel arbitration of individual PAGA claims under a valid arbitration agreement governed by the FAA, they generally cannot use that arbitration to force dismissal of the remaining non-individual PAGA claims. Instead, those claims typically remain in court, often stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.

For employers, Adolph underscores that arbitration agreements remain an important tool, but not a complete solution to PAGA exposure. Arbitration may narrow issues, affect timing, and influence strategy, but it does not deprive employees of standing to pursue PAGA penalties on behalf of other employees. Courts will continue to apply PAGA’s standing rules broadly in light of the statute’s remedial and enforcement-focused purpose.

Ultimately, Adolph v. Uber represents California’s response to Viking River and confirms that PAGA remains a powerful enforcement mechanism. Employers should view the decision as part of an evolving legal framework in which arbitration agreements, PAGA standing, and enforcement policy intersect, and should evaluate both compliance practices and dispute-resolution agreements with that framework clearly in mind.

Adolph v. Uber: PAGA Standing After Viking River

In July 2023, the California Supreme Court decided Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a case that addressed a critical unanswered question left open by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. While Viking River reshaped how arbitration agreements interact with the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), it left uncertainty about whether an employee who is compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims retains standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court. Adolph squarely answered that question under California law.

PAGA allows an “aggrieved employee” to bring an enforcement action on behalf of the State of California to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. The statute defines an aggrieved employee as someone who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom at least one Labor Code violation was committed. Long before Adolph, California courts emphasized that a PAGA action is fundamentally a law-enforcement action, with the state as the real party in interest and the employee acting as the state’s proxy.

In Viking River, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California law to the extent it prohibits enforcement of agreements requiring arbitration of an employee’s individual PAGA claims. The Court further reasoned that, under its understanding of California law, once an employee’s individual PAGA claim is sent to arbitration, the employee would generally lack standing to pursue the remaining non-individual PAGA claims in court. Importantly, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged that California courts would have the final word on questions of state statutory standing.

That final word came in Adolph. The California Supreme Court held that an employee who is compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims does not lose standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court. The Court explained that PAGA standing depends on whether the employee was subjected to at least one Labor Code violation, not on whether the employee’s individual claims are being litigated in court or resolved in another forum.

Central to the Court’s reasoning was the statutory text. Labor Code section 2699 defines standing in simple terms, and the Court declined to read additional requirements into the statute. Compelling arbitration of individual claims does not erase the fact that a violation allegedly occurred, nor does it strip the employee of “aggrieved employee” status. The Court emphasized that standing is based on the existence of a violation, not on whether the employee currently has an unresolved individual claim pending in court.

The Court also rejected the argument that sending individual claims to arbitration effectively severs the PAGA action into separate lawsuits. Instead, it explained that arbitration and court proceedings may proceed in parallel as part of a single action, with courts retaining discretion to stay non-individual PAGA claims while arbitration is pending. This approach is consistent with both California arbitration law and long-standing federal principles requiring enforcement of arbitration agreements even when they result in bifurcated proceedings Adolph v Uber Technologies Inc.

In practical terms, Adolph clarified that Viking River did not eliminate representative PAGA actions. While employers may compel arbitration of individual PAGA claims under a valid arbitration agreement governed by the FAA, they generally cannot use that arbitration to force dismissal of the remaining non-individual PAGA claims. Instead, those claims typically remain in court, often stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.

For employers, Adolph underscores that arbitration agreements remain an important tool, but not a complete solution to PAGA exposure. Arbitration may narrow issues, affect timing, and influence strategy, but it does not deprive employees of standing to pursue PAGA penalties on behalf of other employees. Courts will continue to apply PAGA’s standing rules broadly in light of the statute’s remedial and enforcement-focused purpose.

Ultimately, Adolph v. Uber represents California’s response to Viking River and confirms that PAGA remains a powerful enforcement mechanism. Employers should view the decision as part of an evolving legal framework in which arbitration agreements, PAGA standing, and enforcement policy intersect, and should evaluate both compliance practices and dispute-resolution agreements with that framework clearly in mind