as a “general contract defense” under Iowa law. ii. Procedural and substantive unconscionability. “Unconscionability,” however, is itself a “general contract defense” under Iowa law. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Steinlage, 409 N.W.2d 173, 174 (Iowa 1987) (“Unconscionability ... is a recognized defense to the enforcement of the contract.”) (citing Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979)); Casey, 286 N.W.2d at 207 (“We hold that the defense of unconscionability is available in any contract action.”); see also Iowa Code § 554.2302(1) (2001) (“If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract....”); Restatement (Second) of CONTRACTS § 209 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Under Iowa law, “[t]he burden of proving that
holding that contracts of adhesion are not voidable unless unconscionable recognizing doctrine holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims recognizing the doctrine of unenforceability of unconscionable contracts holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy