In Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1519, the arbitration clause limited the employee's remedies as follows: "'The exclusive remedy for alleged violation of this Agreement . . . shall be a money award not to exceed the amount of actual damages for breach of contract, less any proper offset for mitigation of such damages, and the parties shall not be entitled to any other remedy at law or in equity, including but not limited to other money damages, exemplary damages, specific performance, and/or injunctive relief.'" (Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, 51 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1529.) The unconscionable arbitration clause relegated all employee claims to arbitration while allowing the employer to enforce its rights in court." The arbitration agreement allowed the employer to litigate disputes about patent infringement, improper use of confidential information, and non-competition clauses in civil court, but required the employee to arbitrate any disputes arising out of the employment. (Stirlen, at pp. 1528-1529, 1536.) This provision was one of several parts of an arbitration agreement which favored the employer and were prejudicial to the employee. (Id. at p. 1539.) It was in this context that Stirlen found that the arbitration agreement lacked the necessary " 'modicum of bilaterality.' " (Id. at p. 1541.)