Standing After Individual Claims Are Compelled to Arbitration
Current as of Q1 2026
Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104
The arbitration playbook changed overnight. Individual claims go to arbitration, but the representative PAGA action stays in court — and the plaintiff keeps standing. Defense pivots from elimination to containment.
Holding
An aggrieved employee retains standing to pursue PAGA claims in court even after their individual claims are compelled to arbitration. This rejected the argument that Viking River Cruises eliminated PAGA representative standing.
Impact on Defense Practice
Preserved the 'headless PAGA' action as viable. Defense strategy pivots to manageability and penalty reduction rather than elimination through arbitration. The Leeper v. Shipt appeal (currently before the California Supreme Court) may further refine this framework.
Defense Strategy
Shift focus to early evaluation conferences, cure proposals, and penalty cap positioning. The fight is no longer about eliminating PAGA exposure through arbitration — it's about controlling and reducing it.
This analysis is for informational purposes only. Case law is current as of Q1 2026.