if you exercise your right to assert claims or opt-out of coverage under this Arbitration Provision.” Coleman Dec., ¶ 11, Ex. C, § 15.3(viii). Accordingly, the arbitration clause was voluntary, and the Plaintiffs decision to opt-out would not alter the parties’ relationship. Such a provision can hardly be construed to interfere with, restrain, or coerce an employee into forfeit-, ing the rights afforded by § 7 of the NLRA. To the contrary, Plaintiff was presented with the choice of either arbitrating his claims on an individual basis, or litigating them, either individually or collectively. Therefore, the Raiser Agreement’s Arbitration Provision, which is voluntary in nature, does not violate § 8 of the NLRA. Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Bruster v. Uber Techs. Inc., 15-2653, 2016 WL
holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea 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 an arbitration agreement did not violate the nlra as there was no basis for concluding that the defendant employer interfered with or restrained the plaintiff employee in the exercise of her right to file a class action if she wanted to retain that right nothing stopped her from opting out of the arbitration agreement holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added holding that proposed invalidation of the entire arbitration agreement even if the court were convinced that the plaintiff could not afford to pay for the arbitration proceedings was unnecessarily radical because the court could instead simply nullify the fee provisions of the arbitration agreement and force the defendant employer to bear the expense of arbitration