The expression of a negative public opinion regarding trial attorneys by a staff member at an arbitration administrator does not demonstrate that the administrator's assigned arbitrator will be biased in any particular proceeding, according to a federal district court in California.

In Siglain v. Trader Publishing Co., No. C 08-2108 JL, 2008 WL 3286974 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2008), Siglain was employed by Best Image. Trader purchased Best Image, and offered to retain all of Best Image's employees. As a condition of employment, Trader required employees to sign an arbitration agreement. Siglain signed the agreement with Trader.

Later, Trader terminated Siglain's employment. Siglain brought an employment discrimination claim against Trader. Siglain also sought a release from the arbitration agreement, arguing it was unconscionable and unenforceable.

After determining that California law controlled the interpretation of the agreement, the Court turned to the agreement's allegedly unconscionable provisions. The Court acknowledged that the agreement was adhesive, but also noted that the procedural unconscionability from this fact was minimal.

However, the Court found no substantively unconscionable provisions that could not be severed from the balance of the agreement. The discovery provisions -- providing at least three depositions per side and more on a showing of "good cause" -- provided a necessary "safety valve" if additional discovery was required and therefore did not offend the minimum discovery requirements set forth in Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 102 (Cal. 2000).

The Court also rejected Siglain's argument that the agreement did not provide for an unbiased arbitrator as required by Armendariz. While a staff member with the arbitration administrator -- the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") -- had expressed a public position that was negative toward California trial attorneys, the Court found nothing that would present a danger of bias in Siglain's specific case. Notably, Siglain's counsel admitted that he has not had a dispute with the particular arbitrator assigned to hear Siglain's claims, and that Trader had not been a party in any of the arbitrator's prior proceedings.

Finally, the Court determined that the exclusion for claims regarding restrictive covenants could be construed as substantively unconscionable. However, this provision was contained in a separate section within the agreement and could easily be severed from the rest of the agreement. To the Court, the presence of this one readily severable provision could not support Siglain's assertion that the entire agreement was "permeated by unconscionability" to the magnitude that would warrant invalidating the entire agreement.