Fitz v. NCR Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the AAA rules
• holding that an 18 arbitration “agreement may be unfairly one-sided if it compels arbitration of the 19 claims more likely to be brought by the weaker party but exempts from arbitration the 20 types of claims that are more likely to be brought by the stronger party”
• holding arbitration provision procedurally' unconscionable where arbitration provision was imposed on existing employee as condition of continued employment, giving employee one month to sign arbitration provision or risk losing job of 14 years
• explaining that an arbitration agreement lacks bilaterality where it “compels arbitration of the claims more likely to be brought by the weaker party but exempts from arbitration the types of claims that are more likely to be brought by the stronger party”
• finding 22 substantively unconscionable a provision limiting discovery to two depositions and no written 23 discovery, with additional discovery permitted only if the party could show a compelling need
• finding carve-out for trade secret, noncompetition, and intellectual property disputes to be substantively unconscionable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).