The Second District Court of Appeal found this discrepancy to be material, such that it rendered the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable. The appellate court further held the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the there was a “profound” difference between the two versions regarding “a very significant subject” and applied Civil Code § 1654 to construe the arbitration agreement against the company as drafter of the agreement. The court of appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that courts must always interpret arbitration agreements to preserve the right of arbitration. Instead, the court reasoned, the trial court properly found the PAGA waiver to be contrary to public policy, and also properly found that such unconscionability permeated the entire agreement, because the difference between the two versions of the handbook was “At best . . . negligent; at worse . . . deceptive,” particularly when the handbook was a contract of adhesion.