Gist v. Zoan Management, Inc.

When the determination of unconscionability concerns the arbitration provisions of a contract, the court is the proper forum. A challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator. Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 562, 152 P2d 940 (2007).

Employee appealed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration. On appeal, Employee argued that the trial court erred because the arbitration provisions were unenforceable as part of a procedurally and substantively unconscionable contract. Employee argued that the contract was unconscionable because arbitration was too expensive, he was required to pay his own attorney fees, and he was the denied more favorable terms of Oregon statutes. In response, Employer argued that the arbitration provisions were enforceable and, therefore, the issue was not reviewable. When the determination of unconscionability concerns the arbitration provisions of a contract, the court is the proper forum. A challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator. Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 562, 152 P2d 940 (2007). The Court found that the arbitration provisions were expressed plainly and routinely presented. Furthermore, the Court found that the provisions for the arbitrators’ fees were even-handed and did not reveal unconscionability. Because Employee did not provide sufficient factual information, the Court refused to declare the arbitration costs unconscionable on mere speculation. Finally, the Court concluded that Employee’s challenges concerning the validity of the contract as a whole “must go to the arbitrator.” Thus, the Court held that the arbitration provisions were enforceable, and that Employee’s challenges were capable of resolution in arbitration. Affirmed.