With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: 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  
C: 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
D: holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract
A.