Zaborowski v. MHN Government Services
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
601 F. App’x 461 (2014)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Thomas Zaborowski (plaintiff) was an employee of MHN Government Services, Inc. (MHN) (defendant). As a condition of employment, Zaborowski signed an arbitration agreement stating that all employment disputes would be resolved by arbitration. The agreement also contained procedural rules governing the arbitration process. MHN would select three potential arbitrators for the employee to choose from for adjudications. Arbitration was required to have been initiated within six months of a claim filing. Parties were subject to filing fees, which amounted to multiple thousands of dollars. Punitive damages could not be awarded, and the substantively prevailing party’s costs would be transferred to the losing party. A dispute arose, and Zaborowski filed suit in federal district court against MHN for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MHN filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing its required arbitration agreement. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable, that multiple terms of the provision were substantively unconscionable, and that the unconscionable provisions could not be severed from the agreement to make it enforceable. MHN appealed the district court’s denial to the court of appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence/Dissent (Gould, 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. 46,500 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.
