Girardi | Keese

California Surpreme Court rules on class action waivers

The California Supreme court recently issued a ruling in a case that involved class action waivers. Initial reports of the decision said that the benefit was on the side of employers, but analysis of the 70-page court ruling may indicate that there are benefits and disadvantages for both sides.

The legal matter began when an employee of a limousine company signed a waiver that bound employment-based claims under arbitration agreements. The agreement included a waiver on class actions. The employee later filed a lawsuit against the limousine company, alleging failure provide appropriate breaks, pay overtime and reimburse expenses associated with business. The employee alleged that the company was in violation of state labor codes.

The limousine company filed a motion to compel arbitration in the case rather that see the legal matter play out in court. Because of the initial waiver, the court granted the arbitration motion. The employee appealed that ruling and the appeals court remanded the case due to a 2004 ruling from the state Supreme Court that requiring employees to sign class action waivers could be unconscionable.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a separate, but related case. The ruling stated that state laws governing waivers were preempted by federal laws when attributes of arbitration were concerned. Because of that ruling, the California Supreme Court ruled that arbitration could be mandated in the limousine company case because of the original waiver. That ruling also means a class action suit in the case was moot.

Employment law can be complex, and individuals should work to understand any document they sign in the course of employment. If a document contains legal language, seeking assistance in understanding the possible outcome of signing or not signing the document can protect a person's rights in the future.

Source: Bloomberg BNA, "California Justices Back Class Action Waiver But Decide a PAGA Claim Is Not Preempted" Lawrence E. Dube, Jun. 24, 2014

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

DISCLAIMER: Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result. Any testimonials and endorsements at this site do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter or potential legal matter.


The Soto Verdict

Girardi | Keese attorneys have won a $2.3M verdict for a Long Beach resident run over by a Parks & Rec truck. Read more here.

The Madero Verdict

Attorney Christopher T. Aumais persuaded a San Bernardino County jury to deliver an  exceptionally high verdict in an area known for low jury awards.

A Champion of Justice

Partner Amy Fisch Solomon was a Champion of Justice in 2015, proving that success in law isn't just about the size of your verdict or settlement.

Own a VW Diesel?

Read about VW's emissions scandal and 
our class action against the automaker.


Learn About Our Referral Network Read More

Our Attorneys

Meet our award-winning team Read More


The true measure of a lawyer isn’t the awards, but what the awards say about the lawyer: dedication and commitment to the client.

Super Lawyers Distinguished AV | Lexis Nexis | Martindale-Hubbell | Peer Review Rated For Ethical Standards and Legal Ability American Association For Justice Consumer Attorneys Association Of Los Angeles Consumer Attorneys California Supreme Court Icon 7 Icon Best Lawyers | Best Law Firms 2014 | U.S. News American Board of Trial Advocates Law Dragon America's Top 100 Attorneys | Lifetime Achievement Martindale-Hubbell | AV Preeminent | Peer Review Rated For Highest Level of Professional Excellence | 2017