On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Cocom rejected a plaintiff-appellee’s argument that an employment arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Because the agreement’s scope was limited to employment-related claims, rather than all potential claims, the court ruled it was not unconscionable. The court’s decision is a key win for employers and limits several recent California state court cases that had found arbitration agreements unenforceable due to their scope and wording.

Quick Hits

• The Ninth Circuit ruled the arbitration agreement was enforceable because it was limited to employment-related claims.
• The court clarified that the broad language of “including but not limited to” in the agreement did not render it overly expansive, as other language in the agreement indicated it was limited to employment contexts.
• The court distinguished the case from recent California court decisions that have declined to enforce agreements based on allegations that they are unlimited in scope and duration and lack mutuality.

Conscionability Analysis

The Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s reliance on recent California state court decisions that called into question the enforceability of employment arbitration agreements where they cover claims unrelated to employment, are of indefinite duration, or cover third-party beneficiaries, including an employer’s non-signatory agents and employees.

Scope

First, the Ninth Circuit found the agreement in...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitAFBVV95cUxQVy1waWlZUUpBb2lZUGZnVVF1...