In this FEHA employment discrimination case, the court holds the employer’s arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable because (1) it required the employee to demand arbitration or complain to the employer within the time for filing an administrative complaint with the FEHC, whereas the statute of limitations on the claim would potentially extend two more years, one for the FEHC to issue a right-to-sue letter and another for filing suit thereafter, (2) it provided that the employer could recover attorney fees if it prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration, whereas under the FEHA, the defendant may recover fees only if the suit is frivolous, unreasonable or groundless when brought, (3) the clause lacked mutuality because it excluded most claims the employer would likely bring but required arbitration of most likely claims by an employee, and (4) limited discovery to four depositions a number insufficient for an employment discrimination case. Because the arbitration clause had multiple flaws, it could not be saved by severance. The decision also disagrees with Patterson v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 473, which had construed the same arbitration clause and reformed its attorney fee provision to make it compliant with FEHA’s limitation on attorney fee recovery by defendants. This decision says such “interpretation” is impermissible because the arbitration claus is unambiguous in that respect.