With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cost-shifting provisions in the Employment Agreement are similar to those at issue in Nesbitt because they prevent plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their statutory rights under the FSLA. So, plaintiffs contend, the Employment Agreement here also is unenforceable for the same reason that the Tenth Circuit held Nesbitt’s provisions invalid. Even if the court could decide this issue, the Nesbitt facts significantly differ from the record here. Unlike Nesbitt, plaintiffs have provided no information about their inability to pay the costs and fees associated with arbitration. Without this information, the court cannot decide whether arbitration is prohibitively expensive. The Supreme Court has not determined “[h]ow 4:15 CV 1356 CDP, 2016 WL 3667979, at *4 (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016) (<HOLDING>); Monteverde v. W. Palm Beach Food & Beverage,

A: holding that plaintiff failed to carry his burden to show that arbitration was cost prohibitive because he has provided no evidence of the specific costs or arbitration fees or his financial inability to afford  them
B: holding that where the arbitration agreement was silent on feesplitting and the costs imposed upon the plaintiff by the aaa were not prohibitive the plaintiff had presented little evidence to indicate that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and the fees and costs of arbitration did not render the arbitration scheme unconscionable
C: holding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof because he offered absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the costs of arbitration will deny him an effective forum to vindicate his statutory rights
D: holding that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden to show that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because plaintiffs claims of prohibitive costs were too speculative
A.