in the employment context unconscionable most often rely on a conclusion that the issue of fees or costs under the particular arbitration agreement in question was too speculative. See, e.g., Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, (4th Cir.2002) (recognizing that “[i]t is certainly possible that ‘the existence of large arbitration costs could preclude a litigant ... from effectively vindicating her federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum,’ ” citing Green Tree Fin. Corp., 531 U.S. at 90, 121 S.Ct. 513, but holding that the plaintiff employee “ha[d] not come close to satisfying [his] burden” of “ ‘showing the likelihood of incurring such costs,’ ” again citing Green Tree, 531 U.S. at 92, 121 S.Ct. 513); Dumais v. American Golf Corp., 150 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1189-90 (D.N.M.2001) (<HOLDING>); Quinn v. EMC Corp., 109 F.Supp.2d 681, 685
holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs holding that where the arbitration agreement was silent on feesplitting and the costs imposed upon the plaintiff by the aaa were not prohibitive the plaintiff had presented little evidence to indicate that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and the fees and costs of arbitration did not render the arbitration scheme unconscionable holding that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that the arbitration agreement prevented them from vindicating their statutory rights because they did not file affidavits or assert in their briefs that the costs were prohibitively expensive instead plaintiffs provided only the barest assertions that the fees and costs clause  makes the arbitration provision unconscionable holding the party seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement because of prohibitive arbitration fees bears the burden of proof and the possibility of such party incurring prohibitive costs is too speculative to invalidate an arbitration agreement where the record reveals only that the agreement is silent on the subject of arbitration costs