Reversed. The Defendant was an employee of Plaintiff and during the course of his employment he was required to sign a document that contained an arbitration agreement. He was not afforded the opportunity to read the document before signing and the document was not explained or provided in his first language, Chinese. After his employment with Plaintiff ended, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff sought to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are not categorically unconscionable as a waiver of the “Berman procedure” found in Labor Code 98, but an agreement to arbitrate must provide an accessible and affordable process. However, in this case the Court reversed the appeals court because the agreement had unusually high degree of procedural unconscionability and the Plaintiff was coerced and misled into accepting this agreement.