California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 24 Cal.4th 83, 6 P.3d 669, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (Cal. 2000):
The employer countered by filing a motion for an order to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. The parties submitted declarations in support of, and in opposition to, the motion. Relying on Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1519, 60
[99 Cal.Rptr.2d 752]
Cal.Rptr.2d 138, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the arbitration provision in question was an unconscionable contract. The trial court first found that the arbitration agreement was an "adhesion contract." It also found that several of the provisions of the contract are "so one-sided as to `shock the conscience.' " In particular, it singled out the fact that only employees who file claims against an employer are required to arbitrate their claims, but not vice versa. Second, the agreement limits damages to backpay, precluding damages available for statutory antidiscrimination claims and tort damages, such as punitive damages. The trial court also mentioned the supposed lack of discovery under the arbitration agreement. It concluded: "Given the overall unfairness of the provision," this was not an appropriate case for striking the unlawful provisions of the arbitration agreement; instead it invalidated the entire agreement.[99 Cal.Rptr.2d 752]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.