Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC, 111 Cal. App. 5th 1009 (2025)
The Court noted “[t]here was extensive evidence of procedural unconscionability, with an adhesive contract, buried in a stack of 31 documents to be signed as quickly as possible while a human resources manager waited, before Velarde could start work that same day.” In addition, “[m]ost problematically, in response to Velarde’s statement that she was uncomfortable signing the arbitration agreement as she did not understand it, false representations were made by [the] HR manager to Velarde about the nature and terms of the agreement” – for example, Velarde was told the agreement would allow her and the company to resolve any issues without either side having to pay lawyers. The Court determined there was “ample evidence of procedural unconscionability,” and there was substantive unconscionability because the agreement did not conform to Velarde’s expectations. “Had [the employer] either correctly explained the terms of the agreement, or had not explained them at all, and had given Velarde a reasonable opportunity to review the agreement and to consult counsel, this would be a different case. But that is not what happened here.”
[View source.]
