context: Consequently, not only was acceptance of the clause a condition of employment, it was a condition of being considered for employment. A prospective employee such as Hernandez thus has no meaningful opportunity to negotiate its terms.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 24 Cal.4th 114, 114
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it "was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate ... "
citation_a.sentence: See Circuit City Stores, 279 F.3d at 893 (holding that an agreement was procedurally unconscionable because “job applicants [were] not permitted to modify the agreement’s terms — they [had to] take the contract or leave it”); see also Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it “was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate ... ”); Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 115 Cal.App.4th 638, 663, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 (2004) (“We next consider the ‘absence of real negotiation or a meaningful choice on the part of the weaker party.’
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 279 F.3d 893, 893
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that an agreement was procedurally unconscionable because "job applicants [were] not permitted to modify the agreement's terms -- they [had to] take the contract or leave it"
citation_b.sentence: See Circuit City Stores, 279 F.3d at 893 (holding that an agreement was procedurally unconscionable because “job applicants [were] not permitted to modify the agreement’s terms — they [had to] take the contract or leave it”); see also Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it “was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate ... ”); Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 115 Cal.App.4th 638, 663, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 (2004) (“We next consider the ‘absence of real negotiation or a meaningful choice on the part of the weaker party.’