## Facts

- Viking River Cruises, Inc. employed Angie Moriana as a sales representative.
- Moriana signed an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of disputes and waiving any class, collective, or representative actions, including claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA); the agreement included a severability clause.
- After leaving employment, Moriana filed a PAGA suit in California state court alleging Labor Code violations.
- Moriana asserted (1) an “individual” PAGA claim based on alleged failure to timely pay her final wages and (2) “non-individual” PAGA claims based on alleged violations affecting other employees (e.g., minimum wage and overtime).
- Viking moved to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claim and to dismiss the non-individual claims.
- California courts denied relief under a state rule that invalidated predispute waivers of representative PAGA claims and barred dividing PAGA actions into individual and non-individual components.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a state rule that prevents parties from dividing a PAGA action into individual and non-individual claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement.
2. Whether Viking may enforce an agreement requiring arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim notwithstanding state-law limits on representative PAGA waivers.
3. Whether, once the individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration, Moriana may continue litigating non-individual PAGA claims in court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The FAA preempts state law to the extent it precludes dividing PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.
- Viking was entitled to compel arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim under the parties’ agreement.
- After the individual claim was sent to arbitration, Moriana lacked statutory standing (as construed by the Court) to maintain non-individual PAGA claims in court; those claims had to be dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- The FAA requires enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms; arbitration is a matter of consent.
- State rules are preempted when they coerce parties into a judicial forum or impose procedures that conflict with fundamental attributes of bilateral arbitration.
- A state may treat certain rights as nonwaivable, but it may not bar parties from agreeing to arbitrate an employee’s individual claim where the agreement calls for bilateral arbitration.
- When a statute limits representative enforcement to an “aggrieved employee,” compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claim may eliminate the plaintiff’s ability to pursue claims based solely on violations against others, depending on the statute’s standing requirement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the FAA overrides California’s rule against splitting PAGA actions, allowing enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate an employee’s individual PAGA claim; under the Court’s reading of PAGA standing, the employee’s remaining non-individual claims must be dismissed once the individual claim proceeds in arbitration.


Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022)