Search form

Jackson Lewis Will Represent Employer Before the Supreme Court: Private Arbitration Agreements

By David L. Gordon
  • April 5, 2001

In another case involving mandatory arbitration of employment disputes, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is entitled to seek monetary remedies on behalf of an individual who has signed an agreement to arbitrate any disputes that might arise with his employer. The Supreme Court will review the 1999 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that an individual's arbitration agreement bars the EEOC from seeking money damages or specific equitable relief on behalf of that individual. According to the court, when the EEOC files suit based on a discrimination charge filed by such an individual, the EEOC is limited to pursuing only broad injunctive relief. If the individual desires money damages, reinstatement or front pay, then he or she is bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement.

The EEOC has vehemently opposed mandatory arbitration and the concept that a private arbitration agreement could have any limiting effect on its ability to sue. In prior decisions, the Supreme Court has found that when the EEOC files suit, it is to vindicate he public interest in eliminating discrimination and not simply to recover money for the individual on whose behalf the agency initiated the litigation. In its decision, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged the public interest aspects of EEOC litigation, but also noted there was a strong federal policy to enforce valid arbitration agreements. To appropriately balance these competing interests, the court reasoned the EEOC could seek a declaration that discrimination had occurred and an injunction to prevent its recurrence, while the individual employee could seek money damages, in which the public interest is limited, through arbitration. The Supreme Court will decide whether accommodating these competing interests is required and, if so, whether the Fourth Circuit's approach provides the most appropriate resolution.

Jackson Lewis has represented the employer in this litigation since the case was filed in the South Carolina District Court in 1996, including the proceedings before the Fourth Circuit. The briefing in the Supreme Court will be completed by the end of June and the case should be set for oral argument in the Fall of 2001. Jackson Lewis attorneys David Gordon (Atlanta) and Steve Fisher (Greenville, SC) will prepare the briefs and present the employer's arguments to the Supreme Court. [EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., Docket No. 99-1823, cert. granted 3/26/01.]

©2001 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 15, 2019

EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, and Planning for 2019

May 15, 2019

As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.  Highlights include: Pay Equity Lawsuits: The Next Wave of Litigation... Read More

April 24, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court: Employment Class Arbitration Must Be Expressly Addressed in Contract

April 24, 2019

Class action arbitration is such a departure from ordinary, bilateral arbitration of individual disputes that courts may compel class action arbitration only where the parties expressly declare their intention to be bound by such actions in their arbitration agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision. Lamps Plus, Inc.... Read More

March 26, 2019

New Kentucky Law: Employers May Make Arbitration Mandatory as Condition of Employment or Continued Employment

March 26, 2019

The right of Kentucky employers to require arbitration as a condition of employment and continued employment has been restored by Senate Bill 7, signed by Governor Matt Bevin on March 25, 2019. The new law also provides certain safeguards for employees. Senate Bill 7 nullifies the Kentucky Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Northern... Read More