This decision affirms an order denying an employer’s motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour case. Though the employer called the plaintiff an independent contractor, the relationship was close enough to an employment relationship to make the Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 standards of unconscionability applicable.  The arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable as it was presented to the plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis.  The plaintiff was given only a short period in which to agree to its provisions.  Also, the provision incorporated AAA rules by reference but no copy was given the plaintiff.  Since the plaintiff complained that on AAA rule splitting fees evenly among the arbitrating parties was substantively unconscionable, failure to make a copy of the rules available at signing was procedurally unconscionable.  The arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable in (a) shortening to 6 months the normal 3 or 4 year limitations period on statutory wage and hour claims, (b) in requiring that arbitration costs be shared equally, and (c) providing that the employer only could seek provisional remedies of any sort without waiving its right to compel arbitration.