The Supreme Court of Washington held that arbitration clauses in the reviewed employment agreements were void because they were permeated by several substantively unconscionable provisions, thus allowing the employees’ case to proceed in court as a class action. Hill v. Garda CL Northwest, Inc., 308 P.3d 635 (2013). The substantively unconscionable provisions included: requiring all disputes to be submitted to arbitration within 14 days from when the dispute arises with respect to a claim that is subject to a three-year statutory time limitation; limiting recovery of back pay damages to a time period less than what the relevant statute provides; and excessive fee-sharing provisions to cover the cost of the arbitration. The court distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which bars state courts from prohibiting, as a general rule, class action arbitration. In this case, the provisions in the arbitration clause were struck because they were deemed substantively unconscionable, not because they barred arbitrating as a class.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.orgRegister
Arbitration agreement unconscionable due to time, damages and fee provisions.
USA November 29 2013
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email email@example.com.
Related topic hubs
Gee Yung Loong
What our clients say
"I think it is a great service, continue the good work."