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.
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