In Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 177 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2010), the plaintiff challenged an arbitration agreement as unconscionable because he had been required to sign it as a condition of his employment. 130 S. Ct. at 2775. The contract contained a delegation clause, in which the contracting parties themselves decided whether the court or arbitrator would decide challenges to arbitrability. Id. The delegation clause stated that "the Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable." Id. The Court distinguished between the overall arbitration agreement (the "contract"), and the agreement to arbitrate arbitrability (the "delegation clause"). Id. at 2778-79. The plaintiff "challenged only the validity of the contract as a whole" rather than the validity of the delegation clause. Id. at 2779. The Court held that the plaintiff's challenge to the arbitration agreement as unconscionable--that the plaintiff had been required to sign as a condition of his employment--had to be arbitrated because the delegation clause "clearly and unmistakably" gave the arbitrator exclusive authority over the enforceability of the agreement to arbitrate. Id. at 2775, 2779. In accordance with a valid delegation clause, questions of arbitrability (including the arbitrability of the overall agreement to arbitrate) must go to an arbitrator. Id. at 2778-79.