Opinion ID: 2632735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Attorney Fees Provision

Text: The arbitration agreement provides that [t]he parties shall bear their own respective costs and attorneys fees. CP at 22. Adler contends that this provision is substantively unconscionable because it is one-sided and overly harsh requiring him to waive the right to recover his attorney fees and costs under RCW 49.60.030(2). [12] Fred Lind Manor, on the other hand, asserts that this provision, provides only that the employer need not pay plaintiff's fees and costs leading up to and during the hearing; it does not hamper a prevailing claimant's right to attorney fees under the WLAD after ultimately prevailing. Both the Agreement and the rules provide that Washington law, including the WLAD, governs. Resp'ts' Br. at 39. We do not find Fred Lind Manor's interpretation of this provision persuasive. It is a well-known principle of contract interpretation that specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language. 2 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(c) (1981). While the agreement generally provides that Washington law, to the extent permitted, shall govern all substantive aspects of the dispute and all procedural issues not covered by the Rules, the agreement's attorney fees provision specifically and unambiguously states that the parties shall bear their own respective costs and attorneys fees. CP at 22 (emphasis added). Moreover, any ambiguity between these arguably conflicting provisions is resolved against the drafter, Fred Lind Manor. See 25 DeWolf & Allen, supra, § 5.4. Consequently, this provision effectively undermines a plaintiff's rights to attorney fees under RCW 49.60.030(2) and helps ... the party with a substantially stronger bargaining position and more resources, to the disadvantage of an employee needing to obtain legal assistance. Alexander, 341 F.3d at 267. See also Brooks v. Travelers Ins. Co., 297 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir.2002) (noting that an arbitration agreement which restricts recovery of attorney fees would prevent plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights under Title VII). Thus, we hold that the attorney fees provision of the agreement is substantively unconscionable.