contained in a stand-alone, three-page document regarding remedies, is listed in bold, capital letters and clearly sets forth the terms contained therein”), it is a preemployment contract of adhesion that the potential employee must sign if he or she wishes to be considered for employment. Indeed, the document speaks for itself in this regard; its first sentence states that the employer “will not consider [the employee’s] application unless [the employee] consents to be bound .by [the attached] arbitration policy.” Consequently, not only was acceptance of the clause a condition of employment, it was a condition of being considered for employment. A prospective employee such as Hernandez thus has no meaningful opportunity to negotiate its terms. See Circuit City Stores, 279 F.3d at 893 (<HOLDING>); see also Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114, 99
holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract holding that an agreement was procedurally unconscionable because job applicants were not permitted to modify the agreements terms  they had to take the contract or leave it holding that an initial denial of leave did not constitute materially adverse action because the plaintiff was ultimately allowed to take the leave without any other consequence to her holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate   holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules