This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D has adopted an alternative dispute resolution program called Solution Channel, which it describes as “the means by which a current employee, a former employee, an applicant for employment, or D can efficiently and privately resolve covered employment-based legal disputes.” D's job applicants had to agree to use Solution Channel. If a job offer was made, prospective employees used a computerized onboarding process. They were required to read several company documents and policies and to agree by use of an electronic signature. Those documents included a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (Agreement) and the Solution Channel Guidelines (Guidelines). D hired P in July 2019. P accepted the proposed Agreement, including adherence to the Guidelines. In May 2020, D was fired. She sued D alleging claims for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; FEHA) along with a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. D moved to compel arbitration and to recover the attorney fees. P argued the Agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion, and that several provisions were substantively unconscionable as well. The challenged provisions included those: describing which claims were subject to and excluded from arbitration; imposing a shortened filing period for certain claims; limiting the discovery available in arbitration; and allowing D to recover attorney fees in a manner contrary to FEHA. D urged the Agreement was not unconscionable and argued that, if certain provisions were so held, they should be severed and the balance of the Agreement enforced. The court found that the Agreement was one of adhesion because it was required as a condition of employment. It held the Agreement was substantively unconscionable because it shortened the time for filing a claim; violated FEHA by failing to limit Charter's recovery of attorney fees to cases involving frivolous or bad faith claims; and impermissibly allowed an interim fee award to a party that successfully compelled arbitration. The court rejected arguments that the discovery limitations and the exclusion of some claims were unconscionable. The court refused to enforce the agreement and denied the motion to compel arbitration. D appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed. It concluded additional provisions were unconscionable. The court disagreed with Patterson v. Superior Court (2021) as to the enforceability of a provision calling for an interim award of attorney fees following a successful motion to compel. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.