Juergensmeyer v. Hickman's Egg Ranch Inc., Nos. 1 CA-CV25-0462, CA-CV 25-0586 (App. Div. I, August 18, 2026) (J. Weinzweig) https://coa1.azcourts.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-jtnWmAZZGo%3D&portalid=1

ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN STANDARIZED AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE & NOT PROCEDURALLY UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN CLAUSE APPEARED IN BOLD UNDERLINED TEXT ON A SEPARATE ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY PARTIES WHO HAD TIME TO READ IT AND ASK QUESTIONS

Two inmates were injured while working at defendant's egg farm and chose to sue rather than seek arbitration as required by their work agreements. Their Volunteer Agreement and Waiver provided in bold and underlined text:

“You further agree to submit all disputes related to the

interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement or your

participation in the Program to final and binding arbitration

in Maricopa County, Arizona.”

What arbitration was and how it worked was not explained.

Above the inmates' signature the agreement warned in all capital letters, bold, underlined text:

“BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT

YOU READ AND UNDERSTOOD ALL OF THE TERMS

OF THIS AGREEMENT AND ARE VOLUNTARILY

CHOOSING TO GIVE UP LEGAL RIGHTS, UP TO AND

INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SUE HICKMAN'S FAMILY

FARMS AND ITS ENTITIES FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

The inmates were given time to read the agreement and had the opportunity to ask questions. Refusal to sign would have resulted in the inmates being returned to prison and they would not be permitted to work at the egg farm where the pay was far more than other prison jobs.

In their lawsuit the inmates alleged negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Plaintiffs responded arguing the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it did not apply to a negligence action, their signatures were obtained under circumstances that were procedurally and substantively unconscionable and did not meet the inmates' reasonable expectations.  The Maricopa County Superior court held an evidentiary hearing resulting in a denial of the motion to dismiss.  Defendant then brought this special action. The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction, reversed and remanded.

The Federal Arbitration Act provides that written arbitration agreements ““shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  9 U.S.C. § 2. 

Procedural unconscionability examines the bargaining

process for fairness: “‘unfair surprise,' fine print clauses, mistakes or

ignorance of important facts or other things that mean bargaining did not

proceed as it should.”  Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 184 Ariz. 82, 88–89

(1995) (citation omitted).

To assess whether an arbitration agreement is procedurally

unconscionable, Arizona courts consider “whether the contract was

separate from other paperwork, whether the contract used conspicuous

typeface, and whether the contract was signed hurriedly and without

explanation in emergency circumstances.”

Here the court of appeals found there was no surprise, fraud, deceit or surreptitious conduct in the presentation of the agreement, terms were not buried in fine print or presented under “high pressure tactics” that “'work[] on mental, moral, or emotional weakness'. The inmates were “educated adults with life experience” and the inmates had a “meaningful choice” as to whether or not to sign the agreement. Parties are “assumed to have read and understood the terms of a contract they sign” and the fact there is unequal bargaining power in and of itself does not void the clause and the fact that significantly higher pay was offered did not create duress nor was it fraudulent.