What is the test for procedural unconscionability when an employer does not provide an employee with a copy of the governing rules of arbitration?

" "Numerous cases have held that the failure to provide a copy of the arbitration rules to which the employee would be bound, supported a finding of procedural unconscionability." [Citations.] As each of these cases explained, the failure to provide a copy of the governing rules contributes to oppression because the employee "is forced to go to another source to find out the full import of what he or she is about to sign--and must go to that effort prior to signing." " (

[270 Cal.Rptr.3d 252]

Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc . (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 244245, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 332 ( Carbajal ), italics omitted.)

Specifically, Epstein relies on Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corp. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 387, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, in which the court held three factors established procedural unconscionabilitythe employer drafted the employment agreement, the arbitration clause was a mandatory part of the agreement, and the employee was not given a copy of the AAA rules by which an arbitration would be conducted. ( Id . at p. 393, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 804.) The court concluded "the failure to provide a copy of the arbitration rules to which the employee would be bound supported a finding of procedural unconscionability." ( Ibid . )