Background
Robert Cocom, a former airport janitor, filed a putative wage and hour class action against his former employer, ABM Aviation, Inc. ABM moved to compel arbitration based on a Mutual Arbitration Agreement signed upon hiring. The district court denied the motion, ruling the agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law, heavily relying on the decision in Cook v. University of Southern California. The district court found the agreement’s scope too broad, its duration indefinite, and lacking mutuality, and refused to sever the offending provisions.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit held that the Mutual Arbitration Agreement was distinguishable from the agreement in Cook because it was limited to employment-related disputes. This limited scope meant the agreement’s duration was not indefinite and addressed the mutuality concerns raised in Cook. The court further determined that even if provisions barring public injunctive relief or representative actions were unconscionable, the agreement’s severability clause allowed those provisions to be removed without invalidating the entire contract. Consequently, the lack of substantive unconscionability was dispositive, rendering the procedural unconscionability argument unnecessary to address.
Because the challenged provisions of the arbitration agreement here are distinguishable in important ways from the provisions held unconscionable in Cook, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cocom v. ABM Aviation, Inc., No. 25-3246 (9th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
Employers may enforce arbitration agreements in California that are limited to employment-related disputes, provided they include severability clauses, even if they contain waivers of representative actions or public injunctive relief.