Takeaway: When arbitration provisions, even if presented to an employee on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, are highlighted for that employee, any procedural unconscionability is limited.
Two mechanics who worked for a truck rental company were unsuccessful in challenging an arbitration agreement they had signed, and the trial court was correct in ordering the mechanics to arbitrate their claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation against the company and their former manager, a California appeals court ruled. The court rejected the mechanics' claims that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The mechanics, who were brothers, both signed arbitration agreements as conditions of continued employment with the company.
The agreement is a three-page document. The first two pages explain the company's employment dispute resolution policy and outline the procedures that will be followed.
The final page requires the electronic signature of the employee.
Each of the brothers submitted his electronic signature on the arbitration agreement.
After the brothers filed suit against the company, the employer moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court granted the motion. The brothers appealed.
Arguments on Appeal Rejected
The brothers argued on appeal that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and thus unenforceable. The court first noted that, under California law and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), unconscionability of an...
Qatar’s International Media Office rejects Israeli media claims that its Gaza aid reached Hamas, calling the reports “categorically false.” Qatar’s International Media Office (IMO) has rejected re...