In Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, plaintiff bank employee sued alleging discrimination, and his employer sought to dismiss the suit, stating that the employee had signed a mandatory arbitration agreement, so that the suit should go to arbitration. The employee responded that the mandatory arbitration agreement he had signed was unconscionable, and therefore, unenforceable. Among other things, the employee alleged that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because gave him only 5 days to make a demand for arbitration. The court ultimately ruled:
a. for the Plaintiff employee, because the agreement was both procedural and substantively unconscionable
b. for the plaintiff employee, because the arbitration agreement was procedural unconscionable
c. for the defendant employee, because non of the provisions of the arbitration agreement was unconscionable
d. for the defendant employer because the unconscionable parts of the arbitration agreement count be stricken, and the arbitration could proceed
Answer: a. for the Plaintiff employee, because the agreement was both procedural and substantively unconscionable
If the answers is incorrect or not given, you can answer the above question in the comment box. If the answers is incorrect or not given, you can answer the above question in the comment box.