Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc.
103 P.3d 753 | Washington Supreme Court | 2004
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
An employee challenged an arbitration agreement with her employer, claiming it was unfair and unenforceable. The Washington Supreme Court found that two specific provisions—one limiting remedies and one requiring confidentiality—were unreasonably one-sided and could be removed. However, the court kept the rest of the arbitration agreement in place. This matters to subcontractors because it shows courts will strike unfair contract terms while preserving the overall agreement, rather than throwing out the entire contract.
Key Takeaways
- •Arbitration agreements can be partially enforced even if some clauses are unfair—courts will remove the bad parts and keep the rest
- •Confidentiality clauses and remedies limitations in arbitration agreements face heightened scrutiny and may be deemed unconscionable if they heavily favor one party
- •Challenge unfair contract terms specifically rather than attacking the entire agreement; courts prefer surgical removal of problem clauses over wholesale rejection
Sever the offending provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I challenge just the unfair parts of an arbitration clause in my subcontract, or do I have to reject the whole agreement?
You can challenge specific unfair provisions. Courts will often remove just the problematic clauses—like overly restrictive confidentiality or remedies limits—while keeping the arbitration agreement itself in force. This means you don't have to choose between accepting everything or rejecting everything; you can fight the worst terms and preserve the agreement's core protections.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.