Is it relevant to the discussion of unconscionability? Why and why not?
MOHAMMED AL-SAFIN V. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC
United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
394 F.3d 1254-January 14, 2005, Filed
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
Circuit City Stores, Inc. (“Circuit City”), appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of Mohammed Al-Safin’s employment discrimination claims. The district court held that the arbitration agreement between Circuit City and Al-Safin is unconscionable under Washington state law, and thus unenforceable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section: 16(a)(1)(B), see Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 298 F.3d 778, 780 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
In June 1997, Al-Safin applied for a job at a Circuit City store in the state of Washington. Before Circuit City would consider his application, Al-Safin was required to sign an arbitration agreement entitled “Circuit City Dispute Resolution Agreement” (“DRA”). By signing the DRA, Al-Safin agreed to resolve all disputes arising out of his employment relationship with Circuit City through arbitration in accordance with the “Circuit City Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures” (“DRRP”).
Rule 19 of the DRRP in effect in 1997 (the “1997 DRRP”) stated that both the DRA and the DRRP could be amended “on December 31st of any year upon giving 30 calendar days written notice to Associates, provided that all claims arising before alteration or termination shall be subject to the [DRA] and corresponding [DRRP] in effect at the time the claim arose.” (Emphasis added.