California Supreme Court Erik (Adolph) v Uber Techologies Inc.
There is an important labor case in front of the California Supreme
Court Erik (Adolph) v Uber Techologies Inc., testing whether Justice
Sotomoyor’s opinion (concurring) in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana
applies under current California law. This is a big deal in California
employment law. The statute (Lab. Code 2698-2699) makes an aggrieved
employee a “private Attorney General”, stepping in FOR THE STATE to
pursue alleged wage and hour violations for PENALTIES ONLY derived from
those violations. The “state” gets 75% for any verdict or settlement,
the Plaintiff gets, on behalf of themselves and “other aggrieved”
employees 25% of any verdict or settlements. The question is, if an
employee goes to arbitration, do they have standing to pursue “their”
claim (resolved through arbitration), and/or “other aggrieved employees”
(irrespective of their individual result in arbitration?). They are NOT
wages, they are “penalties” from/on behalf of the State of California
(pursued by employees and/or their attorneys typically ON BEHALF of the
State). So far, the California Courts of Appeal have held that an
employee CAN maintain an action for “aggrieved employees” irrespective
of their individual claims in arbitration. #employmentlaw #arbitration
Stay tuned….
Court Erik (Adolph) v Uber Techologies Inc., testing whether Justice
Sotomoyor’s opinion (concurring) in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana
applies under current California law. This is a big deal in California
employment law. The statute (Lab. Code 2698-2699) makes an aggrieved
employee a “private Attorney General”, stepping in FOR THE STATE to
pursue alleged wage and hour violations for PENALTIES ONLY derived from
those violations. The “state” gets 75% for any verdict or settlement,
the Plaintiff gets, on behalf of themselves and “other aggrieved”
employees 25% of any verdict or settlements. The question is, if an
employee goes to arbitration, do they have standing to pursue “their”
claim (resolved through arbitration), and/or “other aggrieved employees”
(irrespective of their individual result in arbitration?). They are NOT
wages, they are “penalties” from/on behalf of the State of California
(pursued by employees and/or their attorneys typically ON BEHALF of the
State). So far, the California Courts of Appeal have held that an
employee CAN maintain an action for “aggrieved employees” irrespective
of their individual claims in arbitration. #employmentlaw #arbitration
Stay tuned….
