Multiple Unconscionable Provisions Does Not Necessarily Make An Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable.
In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. S273802 (S.Ct. 7/15/24) (Corrigan, J.), Angelica Ramirez, a former employee of Charter Communications, sued the company for employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Charter sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Ramirez signed during her onboarding. Ramirez challenged the arbitration agreement, arguing it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The trial court found the agreement unconscionable and denied Charter's motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal affirmed, identifying several problematic provisions, including: a lack of mutuality in the claims subject to arbitration, a shortened statute of limitations for filing claims, and restricted discovery rights that could prevent a fair hearing. Additionally, the agreement included a fee-shifting provision that violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which only allows fee awards to employers if an employee's claim is frivolous.
The California Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, holding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to its unconscionable terms. The Court highlighted that the agreement unfairly disadvantaged Ramirez as an employee, lacked mutuality, and violated public policy concerning arbitration in employment disputes, particularly under FEHA.
However, the Supreme Court held that the presence of multiple unconscionable provisions does not automatically make an agreement unenforceable. Instead, the court emphasized that courts should focus on whether the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality. If the illegal provisions are collateral to the main purpose, the court should try to sever them and enforce the remainder of the agreement. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal had erred by not properly considering whether the unconscionable provisions could be severed and remanded the case for further consideration on this point​.
Comments