California
California: Illegible Arbitration Agreements Aren’t Substantively Unfair but Their Terms May Be
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CA |
EFFECTIVE FEB 2, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., the California Supreme Court said that a contract’s format, alone, generally is irrelevant to the fairness of the contract’s terms, but courts must also closely scrutinize the terms of difficult-to-read contracts for unfairness or one-sidedness. However, small font size may still indicate procedural unconscionability because it contributes to the element of surprise.
Here, a signed document titled “Applicant Statement and Agreement” contained an arbitration provision of all disputes in the employment context and was printed in a very small font and its text was so blurry and broken up that it was nearly unreadable. The arbitration provision was a lengthy, densely printed paragraph consisting of complex sentences filled with legal jargon and statutory references. Additionally, the employee was given five minutes to complete the paperwork and was not provided with a copy.
For an agreement to be substantively unconscionable, the “fine print” terms must be both hidden and unfavorable to the non-drafting party. This does not mean that a contractual term is substantively unconscionable merely because it was printed in a small font. “An otherwise fair and mutual term is not made substantively unconscionable by printing it in a manner that makes it difficult to read…” Rather, courts must focus on the actual terms of the agreement.
Notwithstanding the substance of an agreement, there is also a procedural element that concerns “the circumstances of contract negotiation and formation,” particularly “oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power.” Small font size may be indicative of the element of surprise. Notably, both procedural and substantive elements must be present to conclude a term is unconscionable, but these required elements need not be present to the same degree. Employers should take care in how and in what condition arbitration agreements are presented to workers.
Action Items
- Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel.
- Ensure arbitration agreements are presented in a fair manner.
California: Violation of Background Check Law Does Not Require Actual Harm
On February 4, 2026, in Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that a violation of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is enough to warrant statutory damages; no actual harm is required. In this case, the required disclosure failed to list the actual agency used to conduct the background investigation and did not provide a check box to request a copy of the report. Although the employee was hired without any adverse employment action, the court found that the statute entitled her to the greater of actual damages or $10,000, regardless of whether any harm actually occurred.
California: Cal/OSHA Analog to Worker Walkaround Rule
Cal/OSHA has proposed a state-level version of the federal OSHA “worker walkaround rule,” that would allow non‑employee third parties to accompany inspectors during workplace safety inspections if deemed reasonably necessary, signaling a potential shift in who may participate in and influence inspections. The draft regulation would permit an additional employee representative, who could be an employee, union representative, or third party, to join inspections, while giving Cal/OSHA inspectors new discretion to limit employers to a single representative. Inspectors would also gain authority to decide when third‑party involvement is justified under a “good cause” standard and to restrict or remove employer or employee representatives whose conduct is viewed as interfering with the inspection. A public hearing is set for April 1, 2026, and written comments are due by that date.
Los Angeles County, CA: Upcoming Increase to Minimum Wage
Los Angeles County has announced that the minimum wage in unincorporated areas will increase from $17.81 to $18.47 per hour effective July 1, 2026. This 3.7% adjustment is required under the County’s Minimum Wage Ordinance and is based on the November 2025 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI‑W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The updated rate reflects the County’s annual inflation‑based calculation and applies to all employers operating within unincorporated Los Angeles County.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
