The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that an employer’s arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, concluding that federal law did not preempt the ruling. Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 733 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2013) (No. 11-56673). The court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a condition of employment, was presented on a “take it or leave it” basis, and its terms were not provided to the employee until three weeks after she had agreed to be bound by it. Moreover, the agreement was substantively unconscionable because the employer chose the arbitrator and the agreement required the employee to pay prohibitively expensive forum costs. The court held that application of the unconscionability doctrine was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the court’s reasoning applied to contracts generally and did not in practice impact arbitration agreements disproportionately.