WILLIAM N. STIRLEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SUPERCUTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants., 51 Cal. App. 4th 1519

Summary

Respondent employee filed a wrongful discharge action against appellant employer. Appellant attempted to have the suit dismissed based on an arbitration provision in the employment contract. The trial court refused to enforce the compulsory arbitration clause of an employment contract on the grounds it was against public policy and unconscionable. The court found that the trial court's determination was correct. It held that the governing state law pertaining to unconscionable contracts, Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5, was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. §§ 1-14. The trial court's determination that the arbitration clause offended public policy related to the arbitration clause that it was exclusive remedy for any violation of any claim. The trial court succinctly explained its conclusion that the arbitration clause was so one-sided as to be unconscionable. The court found that appellant could use the court system for certain claims, but that respondent had to use ...