Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.

Issue: Labor/Employment
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

RLC's Position:
The RLC joined two briefs in nearly identical cases asking the Ninth Circuit to affirm the decisions below that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California courts from prohibiting arbitration of Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims and allows employers to require that such actions be settled on an individual, rather than a class, basis. The enforcement of arbitration agreements allows all parties to quickly resolve disputes in a manner that is less adversarial than litigation.

Case Outcome:
The panel held that the waiver of plaintiff's PAGA claim could not be enforced and that the FAA did not preempt the California Rule announced in Iskanian. Judge Smith, dissenting, would hold that the majority should have deferred to the FAA's federal policy favoring arbitration.  The Court denied the employer's petition for rehearing en banc.

Procedural History and Case Documents:

• Oral arguments heard June 2015
• Decision September 2015
• Luxottica's Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed November 2015
• RLC's Amici brief in support of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed November 2015
• Order denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc February 2016