Goss v. Ross Stores
Plaintiff and respondent Rachel Goss has sued her employer, defendant and appellant Ross Stores, Inc. (Ross), for alleged Labor Code and wage order violations for failing to provide “suitable seats†for cashiers. Goss asserts claims on her own behalf, including for injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) (UCL), and class claims a “representational†claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA). Ross moved to compel arbitration of Goss’s individual claims, claiming she waived any right to pursue class and in a representational claims. While the trial court concluded Goss entered into a binding arbitration agreement, it also concluded her waiver of representational claims was unenforceable and she could not be compelled to arbitrate her claim for injunctive relief. The court therefore denied Ross’ motion. We conclude AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] (Concepcion ) is controlling and requires reversal.[1]
Comments on Goss v. Ross Stores