Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. v. MORIANA 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, 
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

No. 20–1573.  Argued March 30, 2022—Decided June 15, 2022 

The  question  for  decision  is  whether  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act,  9 
U. S. C. §1 et seq., preempts a rule of California law that invalidates
contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under
California’s  Labor  Code  Private  Attorneys  General  Act  of  2004,  Cal.
Lab. Code §2698 et seq.  PAGA enlists employees as private attorneys 
general to enforce California labor law.  By its terms, PAGA authorizes 
any  “aggrieved  employee”  to  initiate  an  action  against  a  former  em-
ployer “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former em-
ployees” to obtain civil penalties that previously could have been re-
covered  only  by  the  State  in  an  enforcement  action  brought  by 
California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).  Cal-
ifornia precedent holds that a PAGA suit is a “ ‘representative action’ ” 
in  which  the  employee  plaintiff  sues  as  an  “ ‘agent  or  proxy’ ”  of  the 
State.  Iskanian  v.  CLS  Transp.  Los  Angeles,  LLC,  59  Cal.  4th  348, 
380.  California precedent also interprets the statute to contain what 
is effectively a rule of claim joinder—allowing a party to unite multiple
claims against an opposing party in a single action.  An employee with
PAGA standing may “seek any civil penalties the state can, including 
penalties for violations involving employees other than the PAGA liti-
gant herself.”  ZB, N. A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 5th 175, 185. 

Respondent Angie Moriana filed a PAGA action against her former 
employer Viking River Cruises, alleging a California Labor Code vio-
lation.  She also asserted a wide array of other violations allegedly sus-
tained  by  other  Viking  employees.  Moriana’s  employment  contract 
with Viking contained a mandatory arbitration agreement.  Important 
here, that agreement contained both a “Class Action Waiver”—provid-
ing that the parties could not bring any dispute as a class, collective, 
or  representative  action  under  PAGA—and  a  severability  clause—