HOLDINGS: [1]-An arbitration provision in an employment agreement was not procedurally unconscionable and did not warrant heightened scrutiny because there was no evidence of oppression or sharp practices on the part of the employer; [2]-The arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable in one aspect because the provision was one-sided, given that it excluded any claims arising from the confidentiality agreement the employee had also signed; [3]-However, that one aspect was readily remedied by severing out the exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement, and a trial court thus abused its discretion in refusing to sever out the offending exception; [4]-Because the arbitration provision had no specific provisions on arbitration costs, the reviewing court interpreted the provision as impliedly providing that the employer had to bear the arbitration forum costs.
Nakase Law Firm explains constructive fraud
Outcome
Order reversed and matter remanded.