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

  • 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.

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).

Breaking News

Logo

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Disclosure : Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.

Holding : The Federal Arbitration Act preempts a rule of California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under PAGA — the California Private Attorneys General Act — insofar as that rule precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.

Judgment : Reversed and remanded , 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 15, 2022. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to Parts I and III, and in which Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined as to Parts III. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined, and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to all but the footnote. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

  • Supreme Court, once again, rejects California treatment of arbitration (Ronald Mann, June 16, 2022)
  • Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, June 15 (complete) (Angie Gou, June 15, 2022)
  • Conservative justices seem again poised to reverse California courts on arbitration issue (Ronald Mann, April 1, 2022)
  • Justices to consider California’s private-attorney-general exception to arbitration clause (Ronald Mann, March 29, 2022)
  • Court sets quiet March argument calendar (Amy Howe, January 28, 2022)
  • Justices will take up cases on arbitration, locomotives, and Congress’ war powers  (Amy Howe, December 15, 2021)
  • First Amendment questions and California arbitration battles (Mitchell Jagodinski, May 28, 2021)

Privacy Overview

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.

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.

viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

Supreme Court of the United States

viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

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 452,163 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

SITE NAVIGATION

  • Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot
  • 2024 Congressional elections
  • 2024 State executive elections
  • 2024 State legislative elections
  • 2024 State judge elections
  • 2024 Local elections
  • 2024 Ballot measures
  • Upcoming elections
  • 2025 Statewide primary dates
  • 2025 State executive elections
  • 2025 State legislative elections
  • 2025 Local elections
  • 2025 Ballot measures
  • Party committee fundraising, 2023-2024
  • State Executive Competitiveness Report, 2023
  • State government trifectas in 2023
  • State Legislative Competitiveness Report, 2023
  • Endorsements in school board elections, 2023
  • Partisanship in 2023 United States local elections
  • Trends in 2023 ballot measures
  • Cabinet officials
  • Executive orders and actions
  • Key legislation
  • Judicial nominations
  • White House senior staff
  • U.S. President
  • U.S. Congress
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • Federal courts
  • State government
  • Municipal government
  • Election policy
  • Running for office
  • Ballotpedia's weekly podcast
  • About Ballotpedia
  • Editorial independence
  • Job opportunities
  • News and events
  • Privacy policy
  • Disclaimers

viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

  • 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.

comscore beacon

Home

Trending News

Hunton Andrews Kurth Law Firm known for complex legal matters in business law and litigation

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

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

viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

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.

Foley and Lardner LLP Law Firm

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

FacebookImage

Thompson Coburn LLP

  • News & Events
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Women's Initiative
  • Payment Portal

A statue of Justice in front of the California flag

U.S. Supreme Court sides with employers over arbitration of PAGA claims

Chuck   poplstein john   viola zoe   spector june 17, 2022.

In a major victory for California employers, on June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts California law and that “individual claims” brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) can be subject to arbitration. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, California employees subject to an arbitration agreement cannot circumvent arbitration simply because their  claim was filed as a PAGA action. 

Prior to this decision, the California Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles LLC controlled the law on this issue. Iskanian held that an employee’s PAGA action, which included claims that were “predicated on code violations sustained by other employees” (i.e., “representative claims”), as well as claims on behalf of the employee as an individual (i.e, “individual claims”), could not be split into two separate actions, and the “individual claims” could not survive an arbitration agreement that contained a class action waiver. In other words, the Iskanian decision provided that “individual claims” could not be brought to arbitration separate and apart from the “representative claims” that were filed together under one PAGA action, and, therefore, the entire PAGA action had to be adjudicated in court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises held that the FAA preempts California law, in part, and that claims brought under PAGA can in fact be split so that the “individual claims” are subject to arbitration. The Court further provided that once the employee’s “individual claim” under PAGA is sent to arbitration, the employee does not have standing under California law to continue in any remaining “representative claims,” (i.e., claims brought by the employee under PAGA that “are predicated on code violations sustained by other employees”), either in court or in arbitration. 

This essentially means that once an employee becomes subject to arbitration on his or her “individual claim,” the employee’s remaining PAGA claim becomes “split” and the employee resultingly lacks standing to bring the remaining “representative claim” under PAGA. Per Justice Alito, this lack of standing stems from the fact that, “[u]nder PAGA’s standing requirement, a plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action…[w]hen an employee’s own dispute is pared away from a PAGA action, the employee is no different from a member of the general public, and PAGA does not allow such persons to maintain suit.”

In its ruling, the Court provided employers with a “green light” to craft arbitration agreements in such a way that reduces the risk of being exposed to “representative claims” brought under PAGA. As the Court explained, an “individual claim” that becomes subject to an arbitration agreement in turn disposes of any non-individual claims, or “representative claims,” that cannot be subject to arbitration per PAGA’s standing requirement. 

In sum, this decision ( for the time being ) provides California employers with some relief on this issue: the FAA preempts California law such that “individual clams” brought by an employee against an employer under PAGA can lawfully be subject to arbitration. “Representative claims”, however,  cannot be subject to arbitration, and once an individual claim brought under PAGA is successfully brought to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement, the employee lacks standing to pursue any remaining non-individual PAGA claims. However, by clarifying that an employee lacks standing to maintain non-individual PAGA claims in court after an employee’s “individual claims” are brought to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement, the Court left open the opportunity for the California legislature to amend PAGA to address this “standing” loophole.  In the meantime, California employers may wish to  consider adjusting the language in their arbitration agreements to fully capitalize on the Court’s holding.

Zoe Spector ,   Chuck Poplstein  and  John Viola  are attorneys in Thompson Coburn’s Labor & Employment group.

ED’s Evolving State Authorization and Professional Licensure Requirements

Corporate transparency act resources, kayla siam receives dei award from governors state university, bipa update: another amendment attempt for illinois privacy law, staying above board: what employers need to know about recent developments from the national labor relations board, update: it’s the final countdown h-1b registration closes march 25, michael parks speaks to reuters on ipo-bound reddit’s patent dispute, california ag announces second settlement under the california consumer privacy act, how privacy requirements impact ai, 5 things to watch out for in a retail lease agreement, john galvin shares insights on pfas lawsuits, california chamber seeks state supreme court review of privacy act enforcement.

  • Client Access
  • Disclaimers
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Los Angeles
  • Southern Illinois
  • Washington, D.C.

viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

Please read before continuing

NOTICE . Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

IMAGES

  1. Viking River Cruises v. Angie Moriana: The case that brought down PAGA

    viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

  2. River Cruises

    viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

  3. Why Viking River Cruises Is the River Cruise Line for You

    viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

  4. Viking River Cruises 2023 Danube

    viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

  5. River Cruise 101: Viking River Cruises

    viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

  6. U.S. Supreme Court

    viking river cruises inc. v. moriana

COMMENTS

  1. 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 ...

  2. 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 ...

  3. 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 ...

  4. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

    Reply of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed. (Distributed) Mar 29 2022. Record received from the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division 3. (1 Box) Mar 30 2022. Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Scott L. Nelson, Washington, D. C.

  5. 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 ...

  6. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

    Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises from 2016 to 2017. Her employment contract included an arbitration clause, but after she left Viking, she sued the company under PAGA, alleging violations of the California Labor Code. Viking moved to compel arbitration, and both the trial court and the California Court of ...

  7. 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.

  8. PDF 20-1573 Viking River Cruises, Inc. V. Moriana Decision Below: 2020 Wl

    20-1573 VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. V. MORIANA. DECISION BELOW: 2020 WL 5584508. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: B297327. QUESTION PRESENTED: In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), this Court held that when parties agree to resolve their disputes by individualized arbitration ...

  9. 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 ...

  10. Viking River Cruises v. Moriana: The Supreme Court favors arbitration

    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 ...

  11. PDF Pages 639-665

    642 VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. v. MORIANA Syllabus visibility 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 benefts of private dispute resolution." Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 685. Pp. 659-662.

  12. Supreme Court Decides Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

    On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a rule of California law insofar as it precludes agreeing to arbitrate only an employee's individual claims under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).. PAGA authorizes any "aggrieved employee" to initiate ...

  13. PDF Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, --- S.Ct. ---- (2022) VIKING

    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, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180

  14. Viking River Cruises v. Moriana: What It Means For Arbitration in

    In a highly anticipated decision for California employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that a California court decision preventing arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims is superseded, in part, by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In short, employers may now compel ...

  15. Viking River Cruises V. Moriana: What It Means For Arbitration In

    In a highly anticipated decision for California employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that a California court decision preventing arbitration of ...

  16. 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 ...

  17. Search

    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 ...

  18. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

    On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Case No. 20-1573.), holding that California…

  19. PDF Supreme Court of the United States

    Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., No. S265257 (Cal.), petition for review denied Dec. 9, 2020. There are no other proceedings in state or federal trial or appellate courts directly related to this case within the meaning of this Court's Rule 14.1(b)(iii). iv . TABLE OF CONTENTS :

  20. U.S. Supreme Court sides with employers over arbitration of PAGA claims

    In a major victory for California employers, on June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") preempts California law and that "individual claims" brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") can be subject to arbitration.. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, California ...

  21. Supreme Court Holds That PAGA Representative Waivers Are Enforceable In

    On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.The Supreme Court held that California's rule invalidating pre-dispute agreements waiving the right to bring "representative" claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) is partially preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

  22. 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.