Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Summary

On remand from the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal reconsidered whether unconscionable provisions in an employment arbitration agreement should be severed. The court held that severance was not warranted because the agreement’s lack of mutuality, shortened filing periods, and potentially unlawful attorney-fee provision reflected a systematic effort to secure an employer-favorable forum, and deleting the provisions would effectively rewrite the agreement. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Charter’s motion to compel arbitration and awarded Ramirez her costs on appeal.

Holdings

1. Severance is not warranted where the agreement's multiple defects indicate a systematic effort by the stronger party to impose arbitration as a forum advantageous to it, and enforcing the remainder would not further the interests of justice.
2. Deleting the excluded-claims provision would effectively require arbitration of claims Ramirez did not agree to arbitrate and would therefore rewrite the agreement; severance cannot be used to impose unagreed terms.
3. The arbitration agreement is permeated by unconscionability and cannot be enforced; the trial court properly denied Charter's motion to compel arbitration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the unconscionable provisions in Charter's employment arbitration agreement should be severed and the remainder of the agreement enforced.
2. Whether severance would further the interests of justice when the agreement contains multiple unconscionable provisions and reflects a systematic effort to impose arbitration on an employee on terms favoring the employer.
3. Whether deleting the agreement's excluded-claims provision would improperly rewrite the agreement by requiring arbitration of claims Ramirez did not agree to arbitrate.

Disposition

affirmed