In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., clarified the standards of “procedural” and “substantive” unconscionability in these agreements. While Armendariz is commonly cited for its holdings on these different types of unconscionability, a lesser aspect of the holding, which was largely unremarked upon for nearly 25 years, dealt with the issue of severing unconscionable provisions. The reason this has been overlooked is because the California Supreme Court in Armendariz refused to sever several provisions of the arbitration agreement scrutinized in that case because they “permeated” the agreement with unconscionability, rendering the agreement incurable.
Recently, the California Supreme Court revisited the Armendariz ruling in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. In Ramirez, the employer attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement that contained several unconscionable provisions. Specifically, “[t]he challenged provisions included those: describing which claims were subject to and excluded from arbitration; imposing a shortened filing period for certain claims; limiting discovery available in arbitration; and allowing Charter [the employer] to recover attorney fees in a manner contrary to FEHA.” The high court summarily agreed with the Court of Appeal that these provisions were indeed unconscionable. However, the California Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts on the issue of severability.
Specifically, the Court clarified that there is no bright line rule that requires a court to refuse enforcement if a contract has more than one unconscionable term. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is qualitative. “At the outset, a court should ask whether ‘the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality. [Citations]. If so, the contract cannot be cured, and the court should refuse to enforce it.”
If the central purpose is permissible, a court must ask whether the contract can be cured “purely through severance or restriction of its terms, or whether reformation by augmentation is necessary”. If no reformation is required, “the offending provision can be severed or limited, and the rest of the arbitration agreement left intact,” and “severance or restriction is the preferred course for provisions that are collateral to the agreement’s main purpose.” Courts cannot do more to save an otherwise unconscionable agreement. The trial court must also ask whether the unconscionability should be cured because the interests of justice would be furthered by such actions. In essence, the court would look to the primary purpose of the agreement and determine “whether mere severance of the unconscionable terms would function to condone an illegal scheme and whether the defects in the agreement indicate that the stronger party engaged in a systematic effort to impose arbitration on the weaker party not simply as an alternative to litigation, but to secure a forum that works to the stronger party’s advantage.”
Among other considerations attendant to these points, the California Supreme Court concluded that “courts may liberally sever any unconscionable portion of a contract and enforce the rest when: the illegality is collateral the contract’s main purpose; it is possible to cure the illegality by means of severance; and enforcing the balance of the contract would be in the interests of justice.”
- Counsel
Jared W. Slater is a Counsel in ECJ's Litigation and Employment Departments.
Jared's practice focuses on defending labor and employment actions, including claims for wage and hour violations, harassment, and discrimination both ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014