Noting contrary holdings in federal cases where courts compelled arbitration of claims under the same agreement, an Ohio state appellate court has reversed a trial court's denial of a motion compelling arbitration, describing the lower court's findings regarding unconscionability as "not sufficiently detailed."

In Roe v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. CA2007-09-224, 2008 WL 3893563 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2008), Roe and other former employees (Roe plaintiffs) filed suit against Rent-A-Center for negligence, wrongful discharge, and discrimination. Rent-A-Center moved to compel arbitration in accordance with an agreement signed by the Roe plaintiffs during their employment. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the Roe plaintiffs that the agreement was unconscionable.

On appeal, Rent-A-Center argued that the trial court erred in holding the agreements unconscionable. The Court agreed. As to procedural unconscionability, the Court found the trial court's holding "conclusory" and "not sufficiently detailed," and remanded the issue for further findings.

As to substantive unconscionability, the Court found the trial court's references to "public policy" were not relevant in determining whether the terms of the agreement were one-sided or oppressive. It acknowledged fleeting references to some substantive provisions in the agreement, but noted that the trial court "never tied those provisions to its discussion about public policy" and did not "determine whether or how those particular provisions…were unfair and commercially unreasonable."

Without sufficient findings regarding unconscionability, the Court remanded the matter for further fact-finding. However, the Court did note two federal court opinions holding the identical Rent-A-Center arbitration agreement valid and enforceable. See Taylor v. Rent-A-Center, No. 5:06CV2228, 2007 WL 2301149, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2007) (rejecting unconscionability arguments based on discovery and cost-sharing provisions as arbitrable issues); Gonzales v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 05CV0005, 2005 WL 1353883, at *5 (N.D. June 7, 2005) (compelling arbitration despite claims of employment agreement unconscionability). But see Gray v. Rent-A-Center W., Inc., No. 07-35185, 2008 WL 3890501, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2008) (holding that the Rent-A-Center agreement's cost-sharing provisions were substantively unconscionable).