With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 36, 37-38 (2), (3) (456 SE2d 631) (1995). 17 Howsam, supra at 83-84. 18 Id. at 84; but compare North Augusta Assoc. v. 1815 Exchange, 220 Ga. App. 790, 792 (2) (469 SE2d 759) (1996) (court in effect finds that whether party has complied with a provision of arbitration agreement setting forth a condition precedent to arbitration is a gateway question for court). 19 Supra. 20 See id. (in accordance with a severability clause in the parties’ agreement, trial court did not err in striking a section of the arbitration clause concerning eligibility of arbitrators as violative of the FAA; but trial court did err in striking another part of arbitration clause governing judicial review, as latter provision was not violative of the FAA); Gannon v. Circuit City Stores, 262 F3d 677 (8th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); SI V v. FMC Corp., 223 FSupp.2d 1059 (N.D.

A: holding that arbitration agreement was not unconscionable where agree ment did not limit punitive damages and limitation of liability provision was severable if unenforceable
B: holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable
C: holding that an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it prohibited an award of punitive damages which was available to the plaintiff under title vii
D: holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages
D.