Arbitration Agreements

Subscribe to Arbitration Agreements via RSS

Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further complicated the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) landscape. In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 (2024), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) rejected the so-called “headless” PAGA theory and held that every PAGA action must include both an individual and a non-individual claim even if the plaintiff disavows their own claim, thereby preventing plaintiffs from using this strategy to avoid arbitration. A conflicting decision was issued by another appellate court (the Fourth District) in Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Servs. LTD., LLC, 109 Cal.App.5th 69 (2025), reh’g denied (Mar. 19, 2025). This disagreement between the two appellate decisions has led to considerable uncertainty for litigants facing pre-June 2024 PAGA lawsuits, with the California Supreme Court now stepping in to provide much needed guidance.Continue Reading Will the California Supreme Court Put the Heads Back on Headless PAGA Suits?

Effective May 1, 2025, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) implemented significant revisions to AAA Employment/Workplace Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. According to the AAA, these revisions aim to improve transparency, efficiency, and fairness in the arbitration process, while also addressing the evolving needs of workplace disputes. The changes carry important practical considerations for anyone involved in employment arbitration before the AAA. Below we discuss the key updates and what they mean for litigants.Continue Reading Major Changes to AAA Employment Arbitration Rules: What Employers and Litigants Need to Know

Arzate v. Ace American Insurance Company, — Cal. Rptr. 3d — (2025) began as a familiar case: plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements (“Agreement”) with their employer that contained a class action waiver. But when a dispute arose, plaintiffs disregarded their Agreements and filed a class action lawsuit. The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, enforced the class action waiver, and stayed the action pending arbitration.Continue Reading Plaintiffs, Not Defendants, Must Initiate Arbitration

On February 3, 2025, the California First District Court of Appeal held that a party to an arbitration agreement cannot rely on a choice-of-law provision to wire around the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”). The case, Casey v. Superior Court, clarifies that a party cannot circumvent the EFAA and compel a dispute to arbitration by using a pre-litigation choice-of-law provision.Continue Reading Choice-of-Law Provisions Cannot Circumvent Ending Forced Arbitration Act, Court of Appeal Rules

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)[1] allows “aggrieved employees” to sue their employers for Labor Code violations to collect civil penalties “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.” The issue of how to resolve PAGA claims where the employee and employer are subject to a binding arbitration agreement has been hotly contested over the last several years, as reported many times in this blog [see here, here, and here].Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Arbitration by Bringing a “Headless PAGA Lawsuit”

Two recent decisions from the California Courts of Appeal could have massive ramifications for employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements. Specifically, each court each held that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) prohibits separating and arbitrating wage and hour claims that are part of the same suit as a sexual harassment claim. These holdings give plaintiffs’ lawyers a new tool try and defeat arbitration agreements and keep cases in litigation. Accordingly, California employers should be prepared for an influx of sexual harassment claims being tacked on to otherwise unrelated wage and hour lawsuits.Continue Reading California Courts Greatly Expand Scope of “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act”

On March 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit published a decision in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC, holding that the Plaintiff Adan Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) qualified as a “transportation worker” under the Federal Arbitration Act, and was thus exempted from mandatory arbitration under the FAA. The district court rejected the employer’s arguments that Plaintiff was bound by the arbitration mandate under the FAA because he performed duties on a purely local basis. This case continues to establish that the scope of the “transportation worker” exemption under the FAA is broader than only those workers that physically move goods or people across state lines, such as truck drivers and cargo pilots.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Finds Shipping Warehouse Employee Qualified as Exempt “Transportation Worker” Under the Federal Arbitration Act

On May 16, 2024, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides trial courts the discretion to dismiss a lawsuit when all claims are subject to arbitration. In Smith v. Spizzirri, a unanimous Court ruled trial courts do not have discretion to dismiss a lawsuit that involves an arbitrable dispute, and must instead stay the proceedings.Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules Trial Courts Must Stay, Not Dismiss, Lawsuits During Arbitration

On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, after the employer appealed the district court’s decision ordering arbitration of both an employee’s individual and non-individual claims under the California Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). The Ninth Circuit held that even though the arbitration agreement made no mention of PAGA, an employee’s individual PAGA claim was still subject to arbitration because the parties’ intended to arbitrate all employment disputes between them. However the non-individual PAGA claims were not arbitrable, because the parties did not consent to arbitration of those claims. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That Only Individual PAGA Claims Can Be Compelled to Arbitration

On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2024) vacated a district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s nonindividual PAGA claims and remanded the nonindividual claims to allow the district court to apply California law as interpreted in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) (“Adolph”).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Applies Adolph, Vacating Lower Court’s Dismissal of Employee’s Nonindividual PAGA Claims

In the past few months, California Governor Newsom has signed numerous new employment laws affecting California employers of all sizes. Below is a summary of some of the laws going into effect in 2024.Continue Reading Looking Ahead: New California Employment Laws for 2024