Am. Jur. 2d Limitation of Actions § 95 (2000). No statute explicitly prohibits Fred Lind Manor and Adler from adopting a shorter limitation provision for WLAD claims in their contract. ¶40 Numerous courts have considered whether limitations provisions in arbitration agreements and/or adhesion contracts are substantively unconscionable. Some have held that six-month limitations provisions for Title VII claims are reasonable, but that shorter limitations periods, i.e., 30 days, are substantively unconscionable. Soltani v. W.&S. Life Ins. Co., 258 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding a six-month limitations provision in an employment contract); Taylor v. W.&S. Life Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 1188, 1206 (7th Cir. 1992) (upholding a six-month limitation period). Cf. Alexander, 341 F.3d at 267 (<HOLDING>); Plaskett v. Bechtel Int’l, Inc., 243 F. Supp.
holding that an arbitration agreement between a lender and a borrower that included a bilateral exception for claims less than 10000 was not substantively unconscionable even if one party is substantively more likely to bring small claims actions   holding district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever numerous substantively unconscionable terms from arbitration agreement holding that an arbitration provision that waived class actions and thus required the consumer to pay a 125 fee to vindicate a 150 claim was substantively unconscionable but also holding that the waiver provision was severable from the remainder of the arbitration provision which would be enforced holding that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it precluded the award of attorney fees which were authorized in the relevant ohio consumer protection statute holding that a 30day limitations provision is substantively unconscionable