Does compelling arbitration end a PAGA representative claim?

After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Viking River, many employers read California PAGA practice as having changed fundamentally: send the individual claim to arbitration, and the representative claim loses its anchor.

Adolph rejected that reading as a matter of California law. Standing under PAGA depends on being someone who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom a violation was committed. Sending the individual claim to a different forum does not alter either fact.

The result is a split proceeding rather than a dismissal. The individual claims proceed in arbitration; the non-individual PAGA claims remain in court, typically stayed pending the arbitration's outcome on whether the plaintiff is in fact an aggrieved employee.

For an employer the operational consequence is that an arbitration agreement is not a PAGA shield. It changes where part of the dispute is heard and adds a procedural layer; it does not remove the representative exposure that made PAGA significant in the first place.