As we have explained, the arbitration provision in the instant case is afflicted with only one substantively unconscionable provision, the exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement (as we have noted, Farrar does not challenge the exception for compensation claims). The provision otherwise applies to worker’s “any dispute” that relating to your employment or its and broadly states, “arises termination,” “[t]he types of claims that are subject to arbitration will include, but will not be limited to, breach of contract, claims of improper termination of employment, claims of unlawful discrimination and claims of sexual or other forms of This language is harassment.” similar to that in the arbitration provision at issue in which the Supreme Court Baltazar, held was not one-sided and by its plain terms made that the parties mutually “clear agree[d] to arbitrate all employment-related (Baltazar, 62 Cal.4th at supra, claims.” p. 1249.) Thus, in this case, the one aspect in which the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable is readily remedied—by severing out the exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement. This is not a case in which the arbitration provision is by unconscionability and, thus, would have to be in order to “permeated” “reformed” eliminate unconscionability. (See 24 Cal.4th at p. 125.) Nor does Armendariz, supra, severing out the offending carve-out result in an agreement contrary to that intended by Direct Commerce. The company retains its statutory rights under the Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.8, subdivision (b) to seek provisional judicial remedies pending arbitration, satisfying any need for judicial to its “quick intervention” “safeguard” We therefore conclude, on this record, the trial court abused “proprietary information.” its discretion in refusing to sever out the offending exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement. Armendariz The Cost Issue For the first time on appeal, in her Farrar maintains the respondent’s brief, arbitration provision should not be enforced because it does not meet the enforceability requirements set forth in for mandatory employment arbitration agreements Armendariz that pertain to unwaivable statutory rights—and specifically, the requirement that an
As we have explained, the arbitration provision in the instant case is afflicted with only one substantively unconscionable provision, the exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement (as we have noted, Farrar does not challenge the exception for worker’s compensation claims). The provision otherwise applies to “any dispute” that “arises relating to your employment or its termination,” and broadly states, “[t]he types of claims that are subject to arbitration will include, but will not be limited to, breach of contract, claims of improper termination of employment, claims of unlawful discrimination and claims of sexual or other forms of harassment.” This language is similar to that in the arbitration provision at issue in Baltazar, which the Supreme Court held was not one-sided and by its plain terms made “clear that the parties mutually agree[d] to arbitrate all employment-related claims.” (Baltazar, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1249.) Thus, in this case, the one aspect in which the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable is readily remedied—by severing out the exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement. This is not a case in which the arbitration provision is “permeated” by unconscionability and, thus, would have to be “reformed” in order to eliminate unconscionability. (See Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 125.) Nor does severing out the offending carve-out result in an agreement contrary to that intended by Direct Commerce. The company retains its statutory rights under the Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.8, subdivision (b) to seek provisional judicial remedies pending arbitration, satisfying any need for “quick judicial intervention” to “safeguard” its “proprietary information.” We therefore conclude, on this record, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sever out the offending exception for claims arising from the confidentiality agreement. The Armendariz Cost Issue For the first time on appeal, in her respondent’s brief, Farrar maintains the arbitration provision should not be enforced because it does not meet the enforceability requirements set forth in Armendariz for mandatory employment arbitration agreements that pertain to unwaivable statutory rights—and specifically, the requirement that an
A146944.DOCX