State v. Tea

How courts have described this case

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

• finding only modest degree of procedural unconscionability because plaintiff did not show factors other than adhesive agreement
• an employer's failure to provide a copy of the AAA arbitration rules to which an employee would be bound supports a finding of procedural unconscionability
• “To establish procedural unconscionability, [the plaintiff] was not required to show she attempted to negotiate the terms of the Agreement . . . .”
• “Carbajal was not required to show she attempted to negotiate the terms of the Agreement 14 because the imbalance of bargaining power is apparent from the relationship between the 15 parties.”
• “The Agreement and its arbitration provision therefore contain at least some degree of 13 procedural unconscionability because it is undisputed the Agreement is an adhesion contract in the 14 employment context.”
• “It is well 21 settled that adhesion contracts in the employment context, that is, those contracts offered 22 to employees on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, typically contain some aspects of procedural 23 unconscionability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).