Case Name: Charles STADTLANDER and Christine Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RYAN'S FAMILY STEAKHOUSES, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2001-04-04
Citations: 794 So. 2d 881
Docket Number: No. 34,384-CA
Parties: Charles STADTLANDER and Christine Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RYAN’S FAMILY STEAKHOUSES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NORRIS, STEWART, GASKINS, PEATROSS and KOSTELKA, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 794
Pages: 881–899

Head Matter:
Charles STADTLANDER and Christine Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RYAN’S FAMILY STEAKHOUSES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 34,384-CA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
April 4, 2001.
Writ Denied June 22, 2001.
Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale by Frederic Theodore Le Clercq, Metarie, Darren A. Patín, Baton Rouge, Alayne R. Corcoran, Metarie, counsel for Defendant-Appellant.
Bodenheimer, Jopnes & Szwak, by David A. Szwak, Shreveport, Mary E. Winchell, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before NORRIS, STEWART, GASKINS, PEATROSS and KOSTELKA, JJ.

Opinion:
j[jNORRIS, Chief Judge.
Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc. appeals the denial of their exception of no cause of action based on a binding arbitration agreement. We reverse.
Factual Background
Charles Stadtlander and Christine Robinson filed suit against their employer, Ryan's, alleging that they were forced to work without compensation when their supervisors clocked them out hours before they actually ended working. Ryan's filed an exception of no cause of action based on a binding arbitration agreement Stadtlander and Robinson signed when they applied for work with Ryan's and an exception of improper cumulation of parties because there was no commonality of interests. On December 16, 1999, the trial court granted Ryan's exception of improper cumulation of parties, but apparently relying on equity in regards to Stadtlan-der, denied its exception of no cause of action. The trial court also found that the arbitration agreement was between the employees and Employment Dispute Services, Inc. (EDSI), and as such Ryan's did not have standing to rely on the agreement.
With regard to Robinson's claim, Ryan's filed an application for supervisory writ challenging the denial of the exception of no cause of action. Ryan's initial writ was denied by this court on January 27, 2000 for an UCRA 4-3 violation. After various delays in the trial court, this court ultimately concluded on July 20, 2000 that the ruling denying the exception could lead to irreparable harm, and therefore was an appealable interlocutory judgment. This appeal followed.
19Law and Analysis: Timeliness of the Appeal
As a threshold issue in response to Ryan's appeal, Robinson argues that this interlocutory appeal is untimely and should be dismissed. Specifically, she claims that Ryan's is seeking a writ application from a December 16, 1999 ruling, and, based on UCRA 4-3, the return date cannot exceed January 16, 2000, unless an extension of time is filed within the original or extended return date period. Ryan's writ (and this subsequent appeal), Robinson urges, is untimely because it was filed on June 15, 2000, six months after the original filing period for writ applications.
Appeals are favored in the law and should be maintained unless a legal ground for dismissal is clearly shown. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27,768 (La.App.2d Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672, writ denied, 96-0063 (La.3/8/96), 669 So.2d 404; Reed v. Columbia/HCA Information Service, Inc., 99-1315 (La.App. 5th Cir.4/25/00), 761 So.2d 625; Mack v. Evans, 33,823 (La.App.2d Cir.4/7/00), 756 So.2d 1270. An appeal is not to be dismissed for a mere technicality. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service; supra; Reed v. Columbia/HCA Information Service, Inc., supra. Unless the ground urged for dismissal is free from doubt, the appeal should not be dismissed. Id.
By a ruling dated July 20, 2000, we found this case to be an appealable interlocutory judgment and remanded to the district court with directions to perfect an appeal within 30 days. The district court lodged the appeal with this court on August 2, 2000. Although the code of civil procedure delineates specific time lines for appeal from final judgments, La. C.C.P. art.2087, 2123, we find nothing in the code, and the plaintiffs fail to cite to anything which establishes a time frame to appeal an interlocutory judgment. We also note that interlocutory judgments may be amended at any time, see, e.g., Carner v. Carner, 97-128 (La.App. 3d Cir. 6/18/97), 698 So.2d 34. Moreover, a judgment refusing to order arbitration, if not immediately appealable, may constitute irreparable injury where the party seeking arbitration is subjected to a trial in a forum with no jurisdiction in the matter. La.C.C.P. art. 2983; Grote v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 96-551 (La.App. 3d Cir.11/6/96), 682 So.2d 926, 928; Rauscher Pierce, Refsnes, Inc. v. Flatt, 93-1672 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/11/94), 632 So.2d 807, 809. As such, considering the favored status of appeals in Louisiana law as well as the potential for irreparable injury, we decline to revisit our former ruling and find that this appeal is timely.
Propriety of Ryan's Exception of No Cause of Action
As a purely procedural matter, we note that although Ryan's filed an Exception of No Cause of Action, the district court took evidence and rendered its judgment on the merits purporting to interpret the arbitration agreement, although it was not directly mentioned in Robinson's petition. When ruling on an Exception of No Cause of Action, a court may only consider the four corners of the petition itself, and not extrinsic evidence; as such, the district court's judgment is inherently erroneous. La.C.C.P. art. 931. However, when evidence on an exception of no cause of action is presented and considered by the court without objection, as in this case, then both sides have consented to the consideration thereof and the pleadings are deemed expanded. Crosby v. Stinson, 33,6268 (La.App.2d Cir.8/23/00), 766 So.2d 615; Giles v. Cain, 99-1201 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/23/00), 762 So.2d 734; Byers v. Edmondson, 97-0831 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/15/98), 712 So.2d 681, writ denied, 98-1596 (La.10/9/98), 726 So.2d 29, cert. denied, Time Warner Enter. Co. v. Byers, 526 U.S. 1005, 119 S.Ct. 1143, 143 L.Ed.2d 210 (1999); Boykin v. Foster, 493 So.2d 731 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); Borden v. West Carroll Parish Police Jury, 28,967 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/11/96), 685 So.2d 454.
|4In the instant case, although Ryan's introduced the arbitration agreement into evidence for the first time as part of its exception, Robinson, in response, specifically disputed the agreement's applicability and enforceability; at no time did Robinson object to the consideration of the agreement itself. In addition, Robinson's petition implicitly includes the agreement, for it facially states that she was employed by Ryan's, and that her causes of action arise from that employment; of which the arbitration agreement is an incident. As such, we find that Robinson's petition was expanded to include the arbitration agreement and testimony offered at the hearing on the exception.
Arbitration Clause: Standing
When Robinson applied for her job with Ryan's, she signed a "Job Application Agreement to Arbitration of Employment Related Disputes." The trial court specifically found that the arbitration agreement was in fact between EDSI, an arbitrator, and Robinson, and as such, Ryan's did not have standing to raise the issue. It apparently based this ruling on the boldface clause which stated that:
This agreement is with EDSI, not with the Company, and is not, nor is it intended to be, an employment contract or any part of an employment contract. This agreement does not affect or alter My "at will" employment relationship with the Company.
IsRyan's argues that although the agreement is between EDSI and Robinson, it is an enumerated third party beneficiary to the agreement and is therefore entitled to rely on it.
A contracting party may stipulate a benefit for a third person, who is called a third-party beneficiary. La. C.C. art.1978. Under Louisiana law, such a contract for the benefit of a third party is referred to as a stipulation pour autrui. Paul v. Louisiana State Employees' Group Benefit Program, 99-0897 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/12/00), 762 So.2d 136. A stipulation pour autrui is never presumed. Id.; Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., 98-2105 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/24/99), 730 So.2d 1012. Rather, the intent of the contracting parties to stipulate a benefit in favor of a third party must be made manifestly clear. Id. Additionally, to establish a stipulation pour autrui, the third-party relationship must form the consideration for a condition of the contract, and the benefit may not be merely incidental to the contract. Id. The party demanding per formance of an obligation pursuant to a stipulation pour autrui bears the burden of proving the existence of this obligation. Paul v. Louisiana State Employees' Group Benefit Program, supra.
The Arbitration agreement in the instant case specifically states that:
The Company . [is a] "third party beneficiary" of My agreement with EDSI, and I am a "third party beneficiary" of others' agreements with EDSI. A "third party beneficiary" is someone who benefits legally from a contract between other parties.
In the preamble, the "Company" is defined as Robinson's "potential employer," which in this situation was Ryan's.
In addition to specifically designating Ryan's as a third party beneficiary of the agreement between Robinson and EDSI, the instant agreement clearly binds both Ryan's and Robinson to submit any applicable employment-related disputes to EDSI. See infra, pp. 6-7, at 887-88. As such, we find that the intended benefit to Ryan's is not merely incidental.
|fiThe trial court's finding that Ryan's did not have standing was based solely on the clause printed in boldface which was obviously designed to insure that a potential employee would not interpret the agreement as a promise to hire and to emphasize that any subsequent employment was "at-will" and not contractual. The trial court erréd by premising its finding as to Ryan's standing merely on this one clause, and not even considering the following clause which specifically designated Ryan's as a third party beneficiary to the Robinson/EDSI agreement.
In sum, we find that the agreement is manifestly clear that Ryan's is a third party beneficiary to the arbitration agreement and the trial court erred in finding that Ryan's did not have standing to enforce it accordingly.
Applicability and Enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement
The gravamen of Ryan's arguments is that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss the case because Robinson agreed to a binding arbitration of all disputes by signing an agreement which stated, inter alia:
The following agreément between you and EDSI is a "selection of forum" agreement by which you agree that employment-related disputes between You and the Company [Ryan's] shall be resolved through arbitration. Any arbitration matter shall be heard and decided under the provisions and the authority of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, as applicable.
As such,*Ryan's contends that as a condition of the agreement, any employment-related dispute must be brought in the arbitration forum, not in state or federal court. The agreement .further provided that:
Any employment-related dispute between the Company, Me, and/or other signatories which would otherwise be brought in State or Federal court will be brought ONLY in the EDSI arbitration forum and under EDSI Rules and Procedures, as modified or amended from time to time. (Other signatories to the same Agreement with EDSI may be, for example, supervisors, managers, and agents of the Company.)
Notably, the agreement was clear as to which disputes were subject to arbitration; specifically exempted from the arbitration agreement were "claims or 17charges handled by a State or Federal agency" such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, state unemployment agency, or state office of worker's compensation. Nevertheless, the agreement was emphatic that all disputes which would otherwise be subject to litigation were subject to arbitration:
Except as to claims or charges actually handled within a State or Federal agency, any and all disputes I may have with the Company, or in that company, its supervisors, managers or other agents may have with Me which would otherwise be decided in court, shall be resolved only through arbitration in the EDSI forum and NOT THROUGH LITIGATION IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT.
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (FAA), which was specifically adopted by the agreement, establishes that as a matter of preemptive federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the issue at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). In fact, a presumption of arbitrability exists; even when the scope of an arbitration clause is fairly debatable or reasonably in doubt, the court should decide the question of construction in favor of arbitration. The weight of this presumption is heavy and arbitration should not be denied unless it can be said with positive assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that could cover the dispute at issue. Crochet Equipment Co., Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Phillips, Colorado, 20 F.Supp.2d 987, 989 (M.D.La.1998); see also Rogers v. Brown, 986 F.Supp. 354, 359 (M.D.La.1997).
Louisiana courts have recognized the heavy weight of this presumption, noting that as to issues of arbitrability, "even if some legitimate doubt could be hypothesized the Supreme Court requires resolution of the doubt in favor of arbitration." Grote v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., supra at 928; Collins v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 99-1423 (La.1/19/00), 752 So.2d 825, 827; Freeman v. Minolta Business Systems, Inc., 29,655 (La.App.2d Cir.9/24/97), 699 So.2d 1182, 1187 (parties' intentions are generously construed in favor of arbitrability). In fact, the Louisiana Arbitration Law, La. R.S. 9:4201-4217, parallels the FAA:
A provision in any written contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract . or an agreement in writing between two or more persons to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement to submit, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
LSA-R.S. 9:4201.
In light of this strong federal and state presumption in favor of arbitrability, we find that the district court was clearly wrong in denying Ryan's Exception of No Cause of Action. The agreement is a clear, express, and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate all employment-related disputes such as those brought by Robinson in the present suit. Ryan's assignments of error have merit.
Robinson's Arguments Against Enforceability of the Agreement
Recognizing the strong presumption in Louisiana law favoring arbitrability, Robinson nevertheless contends that the agreement is unenforceable, claiming that it is "vague and ambiguous" and it should be construed against its maker under La. C.C. art. 2056. We disagree.
19While it is true that an arbitration agreement is a contract subject to the general rules of contract interpretation, Doctor's Associates v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 686, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1655, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996), due regard must nevertheless be given to the overwhelming state and federal policy favoring arbitration and any ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration. McKee v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II, 45 F.3d 981 (5th Cir. 1995); Freeman, supra. Accordingly, Robinson's argument lacks merit.
Similarly, Robinson's argument that the agreement is void ab initio because it is an "adhesion agreement" between a fast-food worker and a corporation is meritless. Robinson has made no showing that she did not understand the agreement or would have refused to work for Ryan's had she been aware of the import of its terms. In fact, it is well settled that a party who signs a written instrument is presumed to know its contents and cannot avoid its obligations by contending that she did not read it, that she did not understand it, or that the other party failed to explain it to her. Tweedel v. Brasseaux, 433 So.2d 133 (La.1983); Freeman, supra; see also, Flynn v. Aerchem, Inc., 102 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1058 (S.D.Ind.2000) (signature on arbitration agreement attesting to receipt of arbitral rules, even if rules not actually received, does not relieve a party from the terms of that agreement.). Put simply, once she signed the arbitration agreement, Robinson's claims that she never received the EDSI rules or understood the agreement's terms are not viable excuses for non-performance.
Robinson's claim that the agreement is invalid by virtue of the unequal bargaining positions of the parties is likewise without merit. Generally, an 11 ¡/'adhesion contract" is a standardized contract, usually pre-printed, which is prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection of the weaker party. Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., 326 So.2d 865, 868 (La.), app. dism., 426 U.S. 901, 96 S.Ct. 2220, 48 L.Ed.2d 827 (1976). In cases where it does not appear that a great difference in bargaining position exists, it is doubtful that the doctrine of adhesion is applicable. Caldwell Country Club v. Department of Transp. and Development, 438 So.2d 723, 727 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983).
In a factually analogous case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana rejected the similar contentions of a fast-food worker who, like Robinson, was presented a pre-printed arbitration agreement. Rogers v. Brown, 986 F.Supp. 854, 359 (M.D.La.1997). Like the Rogers court, we conclude that the worker, who could have found a similar position elsewhere, could have avoided the arbitration agreement had she objected to it by simply choosing to work elsewhere. Rogers, supra; see also, Welch v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 95-2085, 95-2086 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/15/96), 677 So.2d 520. Consequently, we are reluctant to find the requisite difference in bargaining positions between the parties to justify labeling the present agreement a contract of adhesion. Rogers, supra; Welch v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., supra. In fact, the Supreme Court of Alabama found similarly in construing a virtually identical arbitration agreement involving Ryan's and another employee. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc. v. Regelin, 735 So.2d 454 (Ala.1999). As such, this argument has no merit.
Moreover, allegations that an arbitration agreement is invalid due to irregularities in the "making" of the agreement other than fraud in the inducement (which Robinson does not raise in the present case) are more properly lodged with the arbitrator and not a court. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); Rojas v. TK Communications, Inc., 87 F.3d 745 (5th Cir.1996); Perez & Associates v. Welch, 960 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1992); Freeman, supra.
Robinson also contends that the arbitration agreement contains vague and ambiguous language because it is internally contradictory. Specifically, Robinson points to Provision 1 of the agreement which states:
You retain all the substantive legal rights and remedies under state and federal law that you would otherwise have as an employee/applicant of the Company, and You will not have any additional substantive legal rights or remedies[.]
whereas, Provision 4 of Part A reads as follows:
An EDSI decision on any dispute shall be FINAL AND BINDING on all par-tiese]
Robinson contends that the former section directly contradicts the latter because although Provision 1 states that the employee retains all substantive legal rights and remedies she may have under state or federal law, she loses these rights because Provision 4 forecloses any opportunity to appeal an EDSI decision. This internal contradiction, she argues, renders the entire agreement vague and unenforceable.
An arbitration agreement is a "kind of forum-selection clause," Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 2457, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974), and that by agreeing to arbitrate a particular cause of action, parties do not forgo any substantive rights, but only agree to submit to the jurisdiction of an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 31-32, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 1654-1655, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991); Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3354-3355, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). Even arbitration agreements compelling arbitration in a foreign country have been enforced as long as the parties' substantive rights have not been impinged. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 115 S.Ct. 2322, 132 L.Ed.2d 462 (1995). Those "substantive rights" do not necessarily guarantee the right to a | ^judicial proceeding, for under the logic of Gilmer, supra, the right to a judicial proceeding is waivable by contract so long as the rights that proceeding were designed to protect can be vindicated by other means. Thus, arbitration adequately protects Robinson's substantive rights, and her waiver of a procedural device — the prosecution of her claim by means of a court trial and appeal — is enforceable.
Robinson's remaining contention is that the arbitration agreement is inapplicable because she is no longer employed by Ryan's and that agreement to arbitrate is only binding during the period of her employment. If not frivolous, this argument is devoid of merit, for the agreement itself states:
I absolutely must use the EDSI forum for any and all employment-related disputes and/or claims and/or related tort claims I may have against the Company and all other signatories to this Agreement which would otherwise be brought in court, even if the Agreement has been terminated since the date of the claim.
(Emphasis added).
At oral argument, for the first time, Robinson's counsel suggested that the FAA and the substantive body of federal and state law applying it are inapplicable because Robinson's employment does not affect interstate commerce. As a general rule, courts of appeal will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, and certainly not for the first time at oral argument. Segura v. Frank, 93-1271 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 714; Gladney v. Sneed, 32,107 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/18/99), 742 So.2d 642, 650, writ denied, 99-2930 (La.1/14/00), 753 So.2d 215. Nevertheless, it is well-settled that the FAA applies to written arbitration agreements in contracts connected to transactions involving interstate commerce and that phrase has been broadly construed in favor of arbitration. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 281, 115 S.Ct. 834, 843, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (reach of FAA coincides with that of the Commerce Clause); Collins, supra at 828; Circuit City Stores, Inc., supra. Since Ryan's is a multi-state restaurant chain, the restaurant she worked at was located near an interstate highway, and EDSI is a South Carolina corporation, we find no merit to Robinson's suggestion that the present agreement does not, in some degree, affect interstate commerce. See, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 302, 85 S.Ct. 377, 383, 13 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964); Ryan's, supra.
Conclusion
For the reasons expressed herein, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED, the Exception of No Cause of Action is GRANTED, and Robinson's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Costs are assessed to the appellee, Christine Robinson.
REVERSED; EXCEPTION GRANTED; PETITION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
GASKINS, J., dissents for the reasons expressed by J. PEATROSS.
PEATROSS, J., dissents with written reasons.
. Stadtlander also made additional allegations of harassment and a worker's compensation claim. He is not a party to this appeal, so his claims will not be addressed.
. Testimony taken at the hearing on the exceptions indicated that although the application and arbitration agreement were dated two weeks after Stadtlander's 18th birthday, the documents were signed while he was still 17 years old and were subsequently post-dated. The court apparently based its decision, in part, on this apparent inequity. Ms. Robinson, however, was of legal age when she signed her agreement.
.The written judgment was not signed until February 2, 2000.
. In fact, Robinson's co-plaintiff, Statlander, relied on the agreement itself to defeat Ryan's exception as to him.
. To preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review, it is essential that the complaining party enter a contemporaneous objection to the evidence or testimony and state the reasons for the objection. Stephens v. Town of Jonesboro, 25,715 (La.App.2d Cir.8/19/94), 642 So.2d 274, writs denied, 94-2351, 94-2557 (La. 11/29/94), 646 So.2d 400.
. Even if the pleadings were not deemed expanded, we would likely treat Ryan's exception as one of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Martin v. Texaco, 94-2412, (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/5/95); 655 So.2d 549, 551, aff'd sub. nom., Matthews v. Farley Industries, 95-1387 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 1144 (exception of no cause of action treated as exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Anzalone v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97-0866 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/8/98), 714 So.2d 18. Moreover, although the dissent is correct in noting that an exception of prematurity, a motion for summary judgment, or a motion to compel arbitration are the preferred vehicles to enforce an arbitration agreement, an exception is nevertheless treated as what it actually is, not what it is titled. Traweek v. LaBorde, 30,551 (La.App.2d Cir.5/13/98), 713 So.2d 664, 666, writ denied, 98-1933 (La. 11/6/98), 727 So.2d 449.
. The United States Supreme Court has noted that section 2 of the FAA constitutes a "congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. The effect of the section is to create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act." Moses H. Cone, supra, 460 U.S. at 24, 103 S.Ct. at 941.
. A written provision in . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. 9 U.S.C. § 2.
. The final section of the agreement, which is immediately above Robinson's signature, clearly states:
J. I have read the Agreement carefully and have been given a copy of full EDSI Rules and Procedures. I knowingly and voluntarily agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement and EDSI Rules and Procedures, as modified and/or amended from time to time.
. Inherent in all arbitral proceedings pursuant to the FAA is limited judicial review under 9 U.S.C. § 10, which arises after arbitration has concluded. Robinson, however, does not allege any grounds for review under that section at the present time. As such, cases like Penn v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc., 95 F.Supp.2d 940 (N.D.Ind.2000), as well as the dissent in Regelin, supra, which both express concerns that an EDSI forum is "unfit" or "biased" in favor of the employer, are not persuasive. Such concerns, if credible, are properly addressed in an action under 9 U.S.C. § 10 rather than by pre-arbitral allegations based on speculation. Similarly, contrary to the suggestions raised by the dissent, Robinson never alleged or offered any evidence whatsoever that the arbitral forum could not allow for the effective vindication of her claim. Floss v. Ryan's Steak Houses, Inc., 211 F.3d 306 (6th Cir.2000), cert denied, 531 U.S. 1072, 121 S.Ct. 763, 148 L.Ed.2d 664 (2001), and Penn, supra, are facially distinguished as involving federal statutory employee claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Floss ) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (Penn ). Recently, the United States Supreme Court has settled this issue by holding that statutory claims are also subject to a pre-employment arbitration agreement contained in an employment application. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001), . The present case, however, does not involve such statutory claims; in fact, the instant agreement specifically excludes them.