Does the FAA require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot assert representative claims, including under PAGA?

QUESTION PRESENTED 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. The FAA “pretty absolutely” protects agreements that “specify the rules that would govern ... arbitrations,” including agreements that require “individualized” proceedings. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 8S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018). Yet California courts disregard the FAA when, as here, an employee sues under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (Cal. 2014), courts invalidate arbitration agreements that would waive representative PAGA claims and require the parties to arbitrate their dispute on an _ individualized, bilateral basis. Iskanian also holds that the FAA does not preempt this state rule. This Court granted review in Viking River Cruises, Ine. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, 142 S. Ct. 734 (2021), to decide the issues raised here. Dolgen California, LLC (‘Dollar General”) asks the Court to hold this Petition pending Viking River. After the Court decides Viking River, it should grant this Petition, vacate the California Court of Appeal decision below, and remand. The question presented is: Does the FAA require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot assert representative claims, including under PAGA?