Friday, September 27, 2013

That's Not Unconscionable . . .

Peng v. First Republic Bank, No. A135503 (D1d1 Sept. 26, 2013)

After plaintiff sued for employment discrimination, the employer sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in her employment agreement. The superior court, finding that the clause was both substantively and procedurally unconscionable, denied the motion. On review, the court of appeal held that the contract was not procedurally unconscionable simply because it did not attach the applicable AAA arbitration rules. Nor did the fact that the employer could unilaterally modify the conditions of the employment contract make the contract substantively unconscionable, particularly when there was no evidence that the agreement was actually modified by the employer.

Reversed.

No comments:

Post a Comment