William Jones applied to work for a Waffle House in Florida but was rejected. Some ten months later, Jones sued the Waffle House and data-reporting companies used by the restaurant, alleging that the defendants violated the FCRA by failing to give him a copy of the background checks that were run on him in relation to his employment at Waffle House and by failing to give him a chance to dispute the background checks. While the lawsuit was pending, Jones still sought employment at Waffle House and was eventually hired at a Waffle House in Missouri. Jones signed a contract with the Missouri Waffle House to gain employment. The contract contained an arbitration clause compelling both parties to resolve all claims and controversies through arbitration. At no point before he signed the contract did Jones inform his lawyer that he intended to work at the Missouri Waffle House. Jones also did not inform the manager of the Missouri Waffle House that he was engaged in a lawsuit with Waffle House’s parent company. Additionally, the manager at the Missouri Waffle House simply did not know Jones was involved in a lawsuit with Waffle House. About two months after Jones was hired, Waffle House filed a motion to compel arbitration in the pending lawsuit. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Waffle House timely appealed and the appeals court reversed the decision. What are the two types of unconscionability that courts look at to determine whether a contract is unconscionable? Why do you think the appellate court ruled in favor of Waffle House? Do you think if the hiring manager knew Jones was in litigation with Waffle House it would have affected the appellate court’s decision?