Ramos v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
28 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (2018)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Constance Ramos (plaintiff) was a partner at the California offices of the law firm of Winston & Strawn, LLP (Winston) (defendant). Ramos signed a partnership agreement upon starting her job, which contained arbitration provisions. The arbitration provisions included a confidentiality clause prohibiting the parties from discussing any aspect of arbitration with nonparties, cost-splitting clauses, and a forum-selection provision putting all potential arbitrations in Chicago, Illinois. An employment-discrimination dispute arose between Ramos and Winston, and Ramos filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (defendant), alleging employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and anti-fair-pay practices. Winston moved to compel arbitration, citing the partnership agreement Ramos signed. The superior court granted the motion to compel arbitration, and Ramos appealed to the California appellate court. Among other matters, Ramos argued that the agreement was unenforceable and void because the confidentiality, cost-splitting, and forum-selection clauses were substantively unconscionable. After addressing Ramos’s other claims, the appellate court found that the cost-splitting and forum-selection clauses were substantively unconscionable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Margulies, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
