Plaintiff ?worked ?for ?employer ?from ?1997 ?until

  1. He relocated to Washington in 2010. He signed an? ?arbitration?? agreement? ?in? ?2011? ?and another in 2013. The 2011 agreement allowed the employee to opt-out. The 2013 agreement required the employee to sign or be fired. The plaintiff filed suit in Superior Court. The employer successfully moved to compel arbitration.

Division?? III? ?affirmed? ?and? ?enforced? ?the? ?2011 optional agreement. It, however, held that the 2013 agreement was procedurally unconscionable. The court held that under Adler requiring a current employee to sign an arbitration agreement or be terminated was not a meaningful choice. It makes no difference whether the employer would have actually fired the employee or not.

The court stopped short of holding that all mandatory mid-term arbitration agreements were procedurally? unconscionable.? The? court suggested that being offered a reasonable time to find new employment might be sufficient as well as being offered additional consideration.

Mayve v. Monaco Enterp., — Wn. App. —, — P.3d —- (11/3/2015) (Korsmo, Fearing, Brown).