Division I has upheld an arbitration agreement that essentially requires an employee to arbitrate the claims he would likely bring against the employer but allow the employer to litigate the claims it would bring against the employee. ?The panel ruled that since both parties would have to arbitrate employment related claims and neither side would have to arbitrate intellectual property and breach of non-competition claims, the agreement was mutual on its face.? ?The court found the terms of the arbitration clause were sufficiently clear.?? The plaintiff appears not to have raised any arguments about the constitutionality of the waiver of the right to a jury? trial.?? ?On? the? bright? side,? the? case? does require the party compelling arbitration to show the arbitration contract at issue involves interstate commerce.?? That may or may not prove to be more than a minimal burden.?? Walters v. AAA Waterproofing, No. 52294-9-I (3/1/04; Baker, Schindler, Coleman).