|
p0613 An arbitration clause included in an employment contract and part of a "take it or leave it" employment condition was procedurally unconscionable; it was substantively unconscionable because it imposed costs on the employee which he would not be required to bear in a judicial forum, it required the employee to arbitrate all claims he would want to litigate but permitted the employer to litigate claims it would be likely to make, it restricted an employee's ability to vindicate his civil and statutory rights by shortening the period of limitations; an arbitration agreement so permeated with unconscionability that it can be fixed only by reforming the entire agreement is unenforceable.CitationMARTINEZ v MASTER PROTECTION (AAA Reject) 118 CA4 107 [See: CCP 1281; Armendariz v Foundation Health 24 C4 83, T/AT 9/00; McManus v CIBC 109 CA4 76, P/AT 7/03; Kinney v United 70 CA4 1322, T/AT 5/99]
|
|
