Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by Title VII, may be subject to mandatory arbitration only if the arbitral forum permits the effective vindication of those rights. “So long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum, the statute will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function.” Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 28, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (quotation omitted). If, then, the splitting or sharing of the costs of the arbitral forum under a particular arbitration agreement effectively prevents the vindication of a plaintiffs statutory rights, those rights cannot be subject to mandatory arbitration under that agreement. See, e.g., Williams v. Cigna Fin. Advisors, Inc., 197 F.3d 752, 763 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1099, 120 S.Ct. 1833, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that gilmer plainly indicates that an arbitral cost allocation scheme may not be used to prevent effective vindication of federal statutory claims (B) holding the plain language of  1325b2 unambiguously indicates that prospective not historical expenses are to be used to calculate disposable income (C) holding that young will not apply where congress has created a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement of a federal statutory right against a state (D) holding that the quantity of drugs may not be used to support a departure (E) holding that igras specific grant of federal jurisdiction for certain actions indicates congress intended to limit federal jurisdiction to those instances
Output (English): holding that igras specific grant of federal jurisdiction for certain actions indicates congress intended to limit federal jurisdiction to those instances