Martin

*583 MEMORANDUM **

TeleTech Holdings, Inc., TeleTech Services Corp., and TeleTech Customer Care Management (California), Inc. (collectively, “TeleTech”) appeal an order of the district court denying their motion to compel arbitration of a claim filed by Robert Martin, a former employee of TeleTech. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(B), and we reverse and remand.

The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was imposed as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate. 2 See Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 , 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669, 690 (2000) (stating that there was “little dispute” that an arbitration agreement was adhesive because “[i]t was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate”). The fee sharing provision renders the agreement substantively unconscionable because it requires the arbitrator’s fees to be paid equally by the parties and requires each party to post its portion of the anticipated fee prior to commencement of the arbitration. See, e.g., Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, 1178 (9th…