Arbitration: Arbitration Clause Requiring Employee To Pay Nonfrivolous Motion To Compel Arbitration And Subsequent Arbitration Fees/Costs Was Unconscionable

However, Severability Was To Be Considered On Remand.

               In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. S273802 (Cal. Supreme Ct. July 15, 2024) (published), an employer faced unconscionability rulings on components of its arbitration clause, with the state supreme court issuing rulings on unconscionability and then whether those infirm clauses should or could be severed—important topics for employment law practitioners.  As applicable here, the California Supreme Court determined that arbitration clauses requiring an employee to pay motion to compel arbitration and subsequent arbitration costs were unconscionable because they violated FEHA law requiring that fees and costs could only be awarded if employee’s opposition to the motion to compel and subsequent arbitration prosecution was frivolous and without substance.