When is an employer arbitration agreement so unfair that it’s unenforceable?

Angelica Ramirez and her former employer, Charter Communications, were parties to an arbitration agreement. After Charter fired her, she filed a lawsuit alleging claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In turn, Charter asked the court to compel arbitration under her employment contract. Could the company enforce the arbitration agreement, or did it go too far in protecting only the employer?

‘Solution Channel’ designed to resolve employment disputes

Charter created a program for resolving and ultimately arbitrating employment-related disputes in 2017 called “Solution Channel.” Everyone applying for a position with the company was required to agree to participate as well as to Charter’s mutual arbitration agreement. Those who applied and received an offer had to review and accept various policies and agreements, including the arbitration agreement and the Solution Channel program guidelines. After agreeing to submit all employment-related disputes to arbitration, Ramirez was hired as an employee in July 2019. A year later, Charter fired her, and she sued.

Charter asked the court to enforce the arbitration agreement and sought attorneys’ fees in connection with its request in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Ramirez argued the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion—meaning “take it or leave it.”