Hale

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMANDA HALE, Case No. 21-cv-09978-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. COMPEL ARBITRATION

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et Re: Dkt. No. 17 al., Defendants.

Brinker’s motion to compel arbitration is denied. The Federal Arbitration Act “permits arbitration agreements to be declared unenforceable” where a court finds an agreement to be unconscionable. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). Under California law, unconscionability contains both procedural and substantive elements. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 6 P.3d 669, 690 (Cal. 2000). Where, as here, an employee faces an employer with nearly complete bargaining power and in which the employee has no little to no opportunity to negotiate terms, courts have found arbitration agreements at least somewhat procedurally unconscionable. See Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 733 F.3d 916, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2013). The arbitration’s cost-splitting provision is substantively unconscionable. The agreement provides that “[t]he costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne evenly by the…