their statutory rights.”). These four provisions demonstrate substantive uncon-scionability. In making this determination, we harmonize with Concepcion, because our decision is not founded on a policy “unfavorable to arbitration.” Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’ns, LLC, 722 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir.2013) (citing Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1748). Instead, our inquiry is based on general California law respecting unconscionable contracts. See Armendariz, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d at 689; Chavarria, 733 F.3d at 927. 3. In California, severance is preferred over “voiding the entire agreement.” Armendariz, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d at 696. The United States Supreme Court has an even stronger preference for severance in the context of arbitration agreements. See Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1749 (<HOLDING>). However, California law does not permit
holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the faa recognizing the supreme courts repeated reaffirmation of new mexicos strong public policy favoring resolution of disputes through arbitration holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists recognizing  1857a is a clear expression of oklahomas policy favoring arbitration agreements recognizing a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration in the faa