|
p0650 An arbitration clause in an employment agreement was substantively unconscionable because it required the employee, but not the employer, to arbitrate all claims; it required the employee to submit to an employercontrolled pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism that would give the employer a free peek at the employee's case; and it gave the employee only 180 days to assert a claim; it was procedurally unconscionable because continued employment was conditioned on it and its terms were non-negotiable; since there was no single provision that could be stricken to remove the unconscionable taint, it was permeated by unconscionability and not subject to reform.CitationNYULASSY v LOCKHEED MARTIN (Unconscionable Arbitration Agreement) 120 CA4 1267 [See: CCP 1281 etseq; Armendariz v Foundation Health 24 C4 83, T/AT 9/00; Little v Auto Stiegler 29 C4 1064, P/AT 5/03]
|
|
