In a case where there was plainly a power imbalance between the parties, and a worker was required to sign an agreement containing a mandatory arbitration provision, and there is a dispute over whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor, it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to resolve the question of whether the worker was an employee for purposes of an unconscionability determination. An arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable where it was imposed on a worker as a condition of employment, with no opportunity to negotiate, when the worker was not fluent in English, and the agreement did not clearly state what rules would govern arbitration. An agreement was substantively unconscionable where it required a worker to bear his own costs for arbitration, barred him recovering attorney fees or costs, barred him from seeking statutory remedies, barred him from bringing a Private Attorney General Act claim, and barred him from seeing a Berman hearing.
For more information, go to:
No comments:
Post a Comment