Leos v. Darden: Supreme Court Issues Another Arbitration Grant-and-Hold

In Leos v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. (6/4/13, pub. 6/24/13) --- Cal.App.4th --- (discussed here), the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying a defendant's motion to compel arbitration in a sexual harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination action. 

The California Supreme Court has granted review and deferred briefing pending its decision in Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (Case No. S208345) (discussed here) which presents the following issue: 

Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides "I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application" unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.) 

Leos v. Darden is Case No. S212511, and the Supreme Court's web page for it is here.