[20-1573] Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Mar 30, 2022.
Decided on Jun 15, 2022.

Petitioner: Viking River Cruises, Inc..
Respondent: Angie Moriana.

Advocates:

• Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioner)
• Scott L. Nelson (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

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 Act of 2004 (PAGA). Moriana relied on a 2014 decision by the California Supreme Court, Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, which held arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum (such as the one between Moriana and Viking) are unenforceable. Viking moved to compel Moriana’s claims to arbitration, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis overruled Iskanian. The trial court denied Viking’s motion. The appellate court affirmed.

Question

Does the Federal Arbitration Act require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims?

Conclusion

The Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to bring representative claims. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion holding that the FAA preempts the rule in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles to the extent that Iskanian precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.

The California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian, holding unenforceable any arbitration agreement that waives the right to bring a PAGA representative action, presents parties with an impermissible choice: either arbitrate disputes using a form of class procedures, or do not arbitrate at all. The FAA protects bilateral arbitration from undue state interference. To the extent that Iskanian precludes bilateral arbitration, it is preempted by federal law.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the FAA does not apply to state-court proceedings.