Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., 19 Cal. 5th 93 (2026)
When applying to work at Empire Nissan, Evangelina Yanez Fuentes was given an employment application packet that included an arbitration agreement that was written in a very small font with text that was “so blurry and broken up that it is nearly unreadable.” When Fuentes went on medical leave for cancer treatment two and a half years after her employment began, her employment was terminated, and then she sued for wrongful discharge and related claims. In response, the employer filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied on the ground that the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Empire Nissan appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration, and the court of appeal reversed the trial court and directed it to grant the motion to compel arbitration, holding that arguments about illegibility go exclusively to procedural unconscionability and do not implicate substantive unconscionability. The Supreme Court in turn reversed the appellate court, holding that the lower court erred by relying on a presumption in favor of arbitration to conclude that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable while declining to rule on whether the agreement was procedurally unconscionable. The appellate court also erred by directing the trial court to grant the employer’s motion to compel arbitration rather than permitting the trial court to consider on remand Fuentes’s argument that the agreement was unenforceable. (Note: Chief Justice Guerrero’s spirited dissent is well worth reading!)