Employment Arbitration Provision Not Unconscionable.

Plaintiff brought an action against her employer under the Fair Employment and Housing Act [FEHA; Government Code section 12940] and the Family Rights Act [Government Code section 12945.2] and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The arbitration agreement plaintiff signed provided, “I understand and agree that if my employment is terminated or my employment status is otherwise changed or if any other dispute arises concerning my employment and The Company and I cannot resolve such dispute through informal internal efforts, I will submit any such dispute (including, but not limited to wage and hour claims, claims of unlawful discrimination based on race, sex, age, national origin, disability or any other basis prohibited by law, but excluding claims which are required by law to be resolved solely by a public agency, such as claims relating to workers’ compensation or unemployment insurance) exclusively to binding arbitration before a retired judge. I further agree to abide by the procedures in The Company’s Arbitration Policy. I have received a copy of the Arbitration Policy that is located in the employee handbook.” The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, agreeing with plaintiff that the Employment Arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The court found the agreement to arbitrate, considered alone and on its face, lacked mutuality because it required an employee to arbitrate employment-related claims, but did not compel the employer to arbitrate its disputes with an employee. Finding the Employment Arbitration provision was not unconscionable, the appellate court reversed and directed the trial court to grant the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.  Serpa v. California Surety Investigations, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 7; April 19, 2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 695.