Key takeaways

On June 23, 2026, the Ninth Circuit upheld an arbitration agreement between a former employee and ABM Aviation, Inc.

The decision addressed the waiver of representative PAGA claims within the arbitration agreement.

The court ruled that the inclusion of a representative action waiver does not invalidate the entire arbitration contract.

Employers facing wage and hour class actions can continue to enforce arbitration agreements for individual claims in federal court.

The Decision

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in COCOM V. ABM AVIATION, INC., ET AL.. The federal appellate court upheld an arbitration agreement between a worker and his former employer, clarifying the enforceability of contracts that contain waivers for representative claims. The development was first reported in legal media on or about June 23, 2026.

The dispute began when plaintiff Robert Cocom filed a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against his former employer ABM Aviation, Inc. The case was originally filed in the Central District of California. ABM Aviation, Inc. removed the case to federal court. Following the removal, ABM Aviation, Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration for the plaintiff's claims, pointing to an arbitration agreement the parties had previously executed.

The primary legal question centered on specific language within that contract. The Ninth Circuit decision addressed the waiver of representative PAGA claims within the arbitration agreement. The plaintiff challenged the enforceability of the mandate to arbitrate based on this waiver. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld the arbitration agreement between the parties, ensuring the dispute would proceed in a private arbitration forum rather than in a federal courtroom.

Why It Matters

The ruling provides clear appellate authority on the enforceability of arbitration agreements that attempt to waive representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). When an arbitration agreement contains a waiver that might conflict with state public policy regarding representative actions, parties often dispute whether the entire agreement fails or if the core arbitration mandate survives.

By upholding the agreement, the court establishes that employers can successfully compel arbitration of individual wage and hour claims without the entire contract being voided by a representative action waiver. This prevents plaintiffs from using a potentially unenforceable waiver provision as a legal mechanism to invalidate the entire arbitration contract and keep their individual claims in court. The decision guarantees that the fundamental agreement to resolve disputes through arbitration remains intact, which heavily influences how employers draft employment contracts and how plaintiffs evaluate their litigation strategies in wage and hour disputes.

Who Should Care

For lawyers

Defense counsel handling wage and hour class actions in the Ninth Circuit have a definitive appellate endorsement for enforcing arbitration agreements containing PAGA waivers. When drafting or reviewing employment contracts, management-side attorneys can rely on this decision to protect the broader arbitration framework even if specific representative waivers face legal scrutiny. Plaintiff attorneys must evaluate whether to challenge the severability of these waivers or prepare to litigate individual claims in arbitration rather than pursuing representative actions in federal court. Litigators will need to adjust their initial case assessments, knowing that a representative waiver will not automatically sink the entire arbitration agreement.

For consumers/parties

Employees who sign arbitration agreements when they are hired will likely have to resolve their wage and hour disputes in private arbitration rather than in court. If a contract includes a waiver of the right to bring a representative lawsuit on behalf of other workers, the courts will generally still enforce the requirement to arbitrate the individual's own claims. Workers should read their employment paperwork carefully, as these agreements limit their ability to join class actions or representative lawsuits against their employers.

Legal Background

The intersection of federal arbitration mandates and state-level representative actions frequently generates extensive litigation. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to step into the shoes of the state labor law enforcement agency to recover civil penalties for labor code violations. Because these claims are brought on behalf of the state, they occupy a unique space in employment law.

Employers routinely include arbitration clauses in employment contracts to keep disputes out of court, often adding class action and representative action waivers to prevent large-scale, aggregate litigation. A recurring legal question is whether a waiver of representative PAGA claims poisons the entire arbitration agreement or if the agreement to arbitrate remains intact. Plaintiffs frequently argue that because state law protects the right to bring representative PAGA actions, any contract waiving that right is entirely unenforceable. Employers argue that general contract principles require courts to sever any unenforceable waiver and enforce the remainder of the arbitration agreement.

What the Court Did

In Cocom v. Ab M Aviation Inc, the Ninth Circuit evaluated the specific language of the arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiff. The court addressed the waiver of representative PAGA claims within the arbitration agreement and analyzed how that waiver affected the broader contract.

The appellate panel determined that the presence of the representative waiver did not render the entire arbitration contract unenforceable. The court granted the employer's motion to compel arbitration, enforcing the core agreement between the parties to resolve their disputes outside of the traditional court system. The Ninth Circuit maintained a strict focus on the enforceability of the agreement to arbitrate the individual claims, separating that contractual duty from the dispute over the representative PAGA waiver. By doing so, the court affirmed that the fundamental promise to arbitrate survives, even when specific clauses regarding representative actions are challenged.

How It May Be Applied

Lower courts within the Ninth Circuit will apply this precedent when evaluating motions to compel arbitration in wage and hour cases involving PAGA claims. District court judges now have clear instructions to uphold the core arbitration agreement even when a plaintiff challenges a representative action waiver.

Employers will likely review their existing arbitration agreements to ensure their representative action waivers align with the framework approved by the court. Open questions remain regarding how courts will handle the specific representative claims once the individual claims are sent to arbitration. Courts must still determine whether those representative claims are dismissed entirely, stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration, or remanded to state court.

Legal Issue	Before the Decision	After the Decision
Arbitration Agreement Enforceability	Subject to varying district court interpretations when a PAGA waiver was present.	Clear Ninth Circuit precedent upholding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
Plaintiff Strategy	Plaintiffs routinely challenged the entire arbitration contract based on the representative waiver.	Challenges to the entire contract based solely on the PAGA waiver are highly unlikely to succeed.
Employer Strategy	Employers faced uncertainty when enforcing contracts with representative waivers.	Employers have a confirmed legal basis to compel arbitration of individual claims.

Plain-English Callout

When workers sue their employers for wage violations, they often try to bring a "representative" case on behalf of all affected employees. Many employers use arbitration agreements to force these disputes into private proceedings and block representative lawsuits. This decision confirms that even if an arbitration agreement tries to block these group lawsuits, the basic promise to arbitrate the individual worker's claim remains legally binding. Workers bound by these agreements must resolve their personal wage disputes in arbitration, rather than using a disputed waiver to drag the entire case back into federal court.

This article is general legal information and commentary about legal developments. It is not legal advice, does not address your specific situation, and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney. Reading this article and contacting us through this website do not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources & authorities

COCOM V. ABM AVIATION, INC., ET AL. — source
Cocom v. Ab M Aviation Inc — source

Ninth Circuit Upholds Arbitration Agreement Waiving PAGA Claims

Key takeaways