Ramirez

INTRODUCTION

Angelica Ramirez sued her former employer, Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter), asserting claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.; FEHA). Charter moved to compel arbitration of Ramirez’s claims based on the parties’ arbitration agreement. The trial court concluded the agreement contained unconscionable provisions and declined to enforce it. In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 365 (Ramirez I), a different panel of this court held the arbitration agreement contained four unconscionable provisions. (Id. at pp. 386-387.) The panel affirmed the trial court’s refusal to enforce the agreement rather than severing the tainted provisions and enforcing the remainder. (Id. at p. 386) The Supreme Court concurred that three of the four provisions are substantively unconscionable and remanded the matter to this court to consider the severance question anew. (Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, 517-518 (Ramirez II).) After receiving supplemental briefing following remand, we conclude severing the unconscionable provisions would not further the interests of justice and,…