California court rejects illegible arbitration agreement forced through five-minute hiring process

The document’s text was so blurry and broken up that it was nearly unreadable, described as “visually impenetrable” to the point that it “challenges the limits of legibility.” The arbitration clause ran about 900 words in a single paragraph, with one sentence stretching 214 words. It cited six different statutes and referenced various government agencies without explanation. Fuentes signed it and received no copy. 

Two and a half years later, Fuentes went on medical leave for cancer treatment. After a year, she requested a brief extension before returning to work. Empire Nissan terminated her employment instead. 

When Fuentes sued for wrongful termination, Empire Nissan moved to compel arbitration based on the signed agreement. The trial court refused, finding the agreement unconscionable. The judge noted that Fuentes never had a real chance to read or understand what she was signing. Even if she had tried during those five rushed minutes, the text was nearly impossible to decipher. 

An appeals court reversed, ruling that illegibility only matters for how an agreement gets signed, not whether the terms themselves are unfair. The appellate court directed the trial court to send the case to arbitration. 

The court disagreed and remanded the case for further consideration.