With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an "arbitration clause is not unenforceable solely because it is one-sided."); Lackey v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 498 S.E.2d 898, 904-05 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998) (arbitration provision that carved out certain judicial proceedings for lender, but relegated counterclaims in those proceedings to arbitration not unconscionable). See cases cited at 1 Farnsworth, supra note 19, § 4.28, at 592 n.49. 56 See, e.g., Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 379 F.3d 159, 169 (5th Cir. 2004) (arbitration provision requiring any claim customer is likely to bring be raised in arbitration while allowing cellular telephone provider to raise its claims against customer in court unconscionable under Louisiana law); Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 298 F.3d 778, 784-86 (9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>); ACORN, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1170-73

A: holding that erisa did not permit employee to bring claim for punitive damages against employer
B: holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee
C: holding unconscionable under california law employment contract compelling arbitration of claims employee most likely to bring against employer but not claims employer most likely to bring against employee and requiring first 125 of arbitration fees to be paid by employee
D: holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees
C.