On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit protected the right of employees in California to bring representative
actions under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, commonly known as
PAGA. That decision, Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, No. 13-55184 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2015), means that an
employee who has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement which attempts to bar
representative claims against the employer may nonetheless bring a
representative claim under PAGA.
PAGA emboldens aggrieved employees to step into the
shoes of the California Labor Workforce Development Agency to enforce
California’s Labor Code. Penalties recovered from employers who have violated
the Labor Code are then divided between the State and the aggrieved employees.
As discussed in previous blog posts, employees’ right
to bring representative actions suffered a significant blow when the U.S.
Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility
v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), that the Federal Arbitration Act
preempted California’s law (and those of other states) which invalidated consumer
contracts that prohibited representative actions. However, the California Supreme Court subsequently ruled that, notwithstanding Concepcion, PAGA waivers are unenforceable as a matter of state law
in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los
Angeles (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. In that case, the California Supreme Court
reasoned that the state legislature chiefly enacted PAGA to ensure compliance
with the state’s labor code through qui
tam actions, not merely to assert the individual rights of private
litigants. On that basis, the court in Iskanian
concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act – which concerns bargaining
between private parties – did not preempt PAGA.
Following Iskanian,
employers in Sakkab and other cases
nonetheless argued that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the
unenforceability of PAGA waivers under California law. On two occasions this
year, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider that argument: first with
respect to Iskanian and second as to Bridgestone
Retail Operations, LLC v. Brown, 2015 WL 86028, No. 14-790.
That argument failed again this week before the Ninth
Circuit, which emphasized the public benefits of representative PAGA actions in
concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California’s
ability to protect employees through such actions. In that regard, the Ninth
Circuit agreed with the California Supreme Court in Iskanian that enforcing an employee’s waiver of the right to bring
a representative PAGA action allows an employer to dodge responsibility for its
own violations of the law. The Ninth Circuit further stressed PAGA’s central
role in enforcing California’s labor laws, stating that “[t]he explicit purpose
of the rule barring enforcement of agreements to waive representative PAGA
claims is to preserve the deterrence scheme the legislature judged to be optimal.”
Sakkab at 28.
Bryan Schwartz Law applauds the Ninth Circuit for
trusting the state legislature’s judgment that it could significantly reduce
violations of the California Labor Code by allowing employees to vindicate the
state’s interest in strong labor protections.
No comments:
Post a Comment