DoorDash, Inc. v. Brandon Campbell

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), this Court held that the FAA requires courts to “enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings.” Id. at 1619. And since Epic Systems, this Court has repeatedly confirmed that courts must enforce arbitration agreements as written. See, e.g., Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1418 (2019); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 530 (2019). California courts have nonetheless created a broad exception to the FAA’s “emphatic directions.” Epic Sys., 138 S. Ct. at 1621. According to the California Supreme Court, claims arising under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.—which threaten employers with massive penalties for even trivial legal violations—are exempt from the FAA, and otherwise valid agreements calling for individual arbitration are therefore unenforceable as to PAGA claims. See Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 360 (2014). The Ninth Circuit has upheld this conclusion. See Sakkab v. Luxxotica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425, 431 (9th Cir. 2015). And both courts have declined to reassess their holdings in the wake of this Court’s decision in Epic Systems.