On June 13, 2025, a California Court of Appeal struck down an arbitration agreement because of unconscionable terms entered by the parties in a separate employment agreement, governing different dispute resolution fora and procedures that were more favorable to the employer. In Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., the Court held that the employment agreement and arbitration agreement (which did not have an integration clause) signed simultaneously as part of the hiring process must be read together, and that unconscionable—or, in other words, unfair—terms can render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
In Silva, several employees brought class and representative claims against Cross Country Healthcare based on alleged California Labor Code violations. The employer moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the Arbitration Agreement, signed by the employees prior to employment, included a class action waiver clause and required arbitration of all claims between the employees and the employer on an individual basis.
The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that because the Arbitration Agreement and Employment Agreement were executed on the same day as part of the employee’s hiring and both dealt with how disputes between the employer and employee would be resolved, they must be read together. Moreover, the trial court determined that because the Employment Agreement contained unconscionable terms that favored the employer...
Bri Stern, the ex-girlfriend of Andrew Tate, is claiming in a lawsuit that the controversial online influencer and accused rapist set her up in Dubai by filing a false police report against her, c...