Reversing an order denying arbitration, this decision holds that the arbitration clause had only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability due to the employer’s greater economic power and only one clause that was substantively unconscionable but severable. The employer was not required to give plaintiff a Spanish translation since plaintiff did not show she lacked English language skills, just that she was more comfortable speaking Spanish. The arbitration agreement was sent to plaintiff by mail and she had at least 24 hours to copy, read and consider it. The arbitration agreement was only two pages long, in readable print and short easily understood paragraphs. However, the agreement’s provision that either party could appeal an initial arbitration award to a second arbitrator was substantively unconscionable. Though the clause allowed either party to appeal, as a practical matter, only the employer would likely do so, and by that means add significant added expense and delay to the arbitration process. The provision was therefore substantively unconscionable. (See Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064; Saika v. Gold (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1074.) However, that clause was easily severed from the rest of the arbitration agreement, so the rest could be enforced.