Enforcement of an employer’s alternative dispute resolution provision was properly denied as unconscionable. The provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was presented to employees on a take-or-leave-it basis. It was substantively unconscionable because it prohibited the employee from consulting other employees about the claim (thus barring informal discovery) and unduly restricted formal discovery to just 2 depositions and 10 interrogatories, and unduly shortened limitations periods so as to effectively force the employee to proceed with arbitration of an employment discrimination claim before obtaining the benefit of the FEHA’s administrative investigation of the claim.
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three (McGuinness, J.); October 26, 2017; 2017 WL 4837702.