Document: 534 U.S. 279122 S.Ct. 754151 L.Ed.2d 755 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PETITIONERv.WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. No. 99-1823. United States Supreme Court Argued October 10, 2001Decided January 15, 2002 Syllabus Respondents employees must each sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After Eric Baker suffered a seizure and was fired respondent, he filed timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated Title I of Americans Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA). The EEOC subsequently this enforcement suit, which is not party, respondents practices, including Bakers because disability, ADA violation intentional done malice or reckless indifference. complaint requested injunctive relief eradicate effects [respondents] past present unlawful practices; specific designed make whole, backpay, reinstatement, compensatory damages; punitive damages for malicious conduct. Respondent petitioned under Federal Arbitration (FAA) stay EEOCs suit compel arbitration, dismiss action, but District denied relief. Fourth Circuit concluded arbitration between respondent did foreclose action party contract, had independent statutory authority bring in any federal district court where venue proper. Nevertheless, held limited precluded from seeking victim-specific FAA policy favoring private agreements outweighs EEOC's right proceed when it seeks primarily vindicate private, rather than public, interests. Held:An employer employee arbitrate employment-related does bar pursuing judicial relief, such as damages, action. Pp.518. (a)The directs exercise same powers, remedies, procedures are set forth VII Civil Rights 1964 enforcing ADAs prohibitions against on basis disability. Following 1991 amendments VII, has enjoin engaging pursue both actions. Thus, these statutes unambiguously authorize obtain here if can prove its case respondent. Neither nor Courts cases suggest existence parties materially changes function remedies otherwise available. Pp.58. (b)Despite agreements, nothing authorizes issues, parties, already covered agreement. mention public agencies; ensures enforceability arbitrate, purport place restriction non-partys choice forum. Pp.89. (c)The based decision evaluation competing policies implemented FAA, language either If could prosecute claim only consent, prayer dictated Baker, lower courts analysis might persuasive. But once filed, exact opposite true ADA, clearly makes master own case, conferring evaluate strength interest at stake determine whether resources should committed recovery Moreover, Appeals attempt balance goals clear inconsistent holding require they have agreed do so. E.g., Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board Trustees Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 468, 478. Because contract claims, FAA's pro-arbitration agency relinquish regardless forum chosen resolve their disputes. Pp.916. (d)Although conduct may effectively limit if, example, fails mitigate accepts monetary settlement, see, e.g., Ford Motor Co. EEOC, 458 219, 231232, sought there indication entered into settlement negotiations fact ordinary principles res judicata, mootness, mitigation apply claims mean merely derivative. This recognized several situations stand shoes, Occidental Life Ins. Cal. 432 355, 368, and, context, statute specifically grants exclusive over been filed. Pp.1618. 193 F.3d 805, reversed remanded. Stevens, J., delivered opinion Court, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined. On writ certiorari united states appeals fourth circuit Justice Stevens Court. 1 question presented bars (ADA), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. Supp. V). 2 * In application dispute concerning would arbitration.1 As condition employment, all prospective Waffle House required containing similar mandatory See App. 56. began working grill operator one restaurants August 1994. Sixteen days later work soon thereafter discharged. Id., 4344. initiate proceedings, seven years since termination, file ADA. 3 investigation unsuccessful conciliate, South Carolina,2 pursuant 107(a) 12117(a) ed.), 102 1991, added, 105 1072, 1981a ed.). case. alleged engaged practices intentional, indifference [his] federally protected rights. grant order award 3840. 4 petition (FAA), 9 seq., Based factual determination actual included provision, motion. granted interlocutory appeal valid, enforceable exist. 808 (CA4 1999). then proceeded consider what effect, any, name behalf Baker. 809. reviewing relevant 809-812. expressed giving some effect majority explained: 5 When make-whole charging circumstance, minimal, other hand, large-scale tips favor efforts dominates 812.3 6 Therefore, according Appeals, signed agreement, Several considered issue reached conflicting conclusions. Compare Franks Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 448 (CA6 1999) (employees affect court), Kidder, Peabody Co., 156 298 (CA2 1998) (allowing court, precluding relief); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Nixon, 210 814 (CA8), cert. denied, 531 958 (2000) (same). We conflict, 532 941 (2001), now reverse. II 7 Congress directed ed.).4 Accordingly, provisions defining provide starting point our analysis. 8 enacted 1964, authorized actions individual Attorney General involving pattern practice discrimination. 2000e6(a) however, investigate possible, conciliate charges Telephone Northwest 446 318, 325 (1980). 1972, amended actions; indeed, we observed 1972 created system intended bear primary burden litigation, id., 326. Those employers appropriate affirmative include without backpay.5 specify districts brought.6 They proceedings. again allow complaining party. 1981a(a)(1) term includes plaintiffs 1981a(d)(1)(A), well, 1981a(a)(2), (d)(1)(B). damages. 10 Prior amendments, difference role cause 355 (1977), Telephone, supra. subject limitations govern individuals claims. conciliation process, female employee, sex defendants motion summary judgment ground time barred; after California's 1-year run. procedural structure simply vehicle conducting litigation U.S., 368. To hold undermined agency's responsibility subjecting periods. 11 Telephones facilities four States, being certified class representative Rule Procedure 23. 321322. Relying plain legislative intent behind comply 23 need look no further 706 purpose, among others, securing group aggrieved individuals. 324. light granting jurisdiction 180 files charge, proxy victims [its] suits 12 Against backdrop decisions expanded available There suggesting III 13 1925, 43 883, reenacted codified 1947 Code. It enactment 1964. explained, purpose reverse longstanding hostility existed English common law adopted American courts, footing contracts. Gilmer Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 20, 24 (1991). broadly provides written provision evidencing transaction commerce settle controversy arising out shall irrevocable, enforceable, save upon grounds exist equity revocation contract. 2. contracts, except those covering workers transportation, Act. City Stores, Adams, (2001). 14 stays proceedings proceeding referable orders compelling failed refused 4. read manifest liberal agreements. Gilmer, 25 (quoting Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. 460 1, (1983)). Absent ambiguity defines scope Mastrobuono Shearson Lehman Hutton, 514 52, 57 (1995) ([T]he operate regard wishes contracting parties). For non-party's IV 15 text F.3d, 812. never claim, 811 (We also recognize agreement), interest, opined permitting significantly trample strong submit effectuate policy, distinguished barred obtaining latter served pursues whole outweighed Only broad view, overcome underpinning FAA.7 16 were command process. days. During time, right-to-sue letter before prosecuting claim. If, own, although intervene suit. 2000e5(f)(1) fact, takes position even disavowed desire seek Brief Petitioner 20. confers stake. textual support contrary province And determination, 17 dissent contend supports limits determined court. 19, n.8; post, 46 (Thomas, dissenting). rely 706(g)(1), that, finding liability, practice, appropriate, include, to, reinstatement hiring employees, back pay equitable deems appropriate. 2000e5(g)(1) ed.) (emphasis added). 18 proposed reading flawed two reasons. First, refers subcategory authorizing separate section statute, 1981a(a)(1), language. responds pointing phrase recover arguing too prohibiting 6, n.7. contention highlights second error reading. position, discretionary constitute authorization judge-made, per se rules. natural text. These terms obviously refer trial judges discretion particular amount warranted facts permit announce categorical rule expressly form inappropriate agreement.8 19 wisely adopt 706(g). Instead, While more coherent approach, recent cases. equal 478 (1989).9 Prima Paint Corp. Flood Conklin Mfg. 388 395, 404, n. (1967) 1925 so). bottom guaranteeing contractual arrangements, Mitsubishi Motors Soler Chrysler Plymouth, 473 614, 625 (1985), first dispute, general goals, 626. ambiguities resolved Volt, 476, override reach result implicated. [FAA] matter coercion. 479. Here ambiguity. No asserts goes saying cannot bind nonparty. 20 Even underlying necessitate authority, line drawn creates uncomfortable fit avowed preserving while category over-inclusive under-inclusive. benefit serve obvious deterring future violations. Newport Fact Concerts, 453 247, 266270 (1981) (Punitive definition compensate injured punish tort feasor . , deter him others extreme conduct); Restatement (Second) Torts 908 (1977). Punitive often greater impact behavior threat injunction, yet compromise scheme. And, under-inclusive seemingly victim-specific, seen closely tied injury interest. Occidental, 383 (Rehnquist, dissenting) (While appear based, nonetheless redress individuals). 21 solution turns selection clause waiver remedies. trumps outside arbitral not, clear; disputes.10 Rather split difference, persuaded whenever chooses many year entirely undermine detailed scheme give contemplate function.11 V 22 true, amici argued, limiting accepted accordingly. See, 231232 (1982) (Title claimant forfeits backpay refuses job substantially equivalent denied); Goodyear Aerospace 813 F.2d 1539, 1542 (CA9 1987) rendered her personal moot); Steel 921 489, 495 (CA3 1990) (individuals who litigated judicata subsequent claims). noted, preclude double individual. 333. validity character appropriately awarded record. open seek. EEOC. answer question. second-guess given follow shoes. 368 (EEOC state limitations); 326 satisfy requirements); 32 class-wide agreement). contradict decisions, render employee. reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 26 so ordered. 27 Thomas, dissenting opinion, Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, Notes: states: agree Applicants House, subsidiary Franchisee terms, conditions benefits arbitrable, will conducted Commercial Rules Association demand made. A arbitrator made said rules exclusive, final heirs, executors, administrators, successors assigns. costs expenses borne evenly parties. 59. evidence presented, course express merits note, human rights commission investigated found response small number received year, see 7, infra. keeping normal appellate pleading stage, assume, arguendo, meritorious. One member panel dissented employment. 813. Section provides: sections 2000e4, 2000e5, 2000e6, 2000e8, 2000e9 title sub-chapter Commission, General, person disability chapter, regulations promulgated 12116 title, (g) Injunctions; action; relief; accrual pay; reduction (1) finds intentionally charged complaint, (payable employer, agency, labor organization, be, responsible practice), Back liability accrue date prior filing Commission. Interim earnings amounts earnable reasonable diligence persons discriminated reduce allowable. 2000e5(f)(3) Each brought sub-chapter. Such State committed, records maintained administered, worked within district, principal office. purposes 1404 1406 28, office brought. framework assumes unless limited. consider, built duties. Unlike 2000e5(b) ever attempted neglected take account fraction file. fiscal 2000, 79,896 Although 8,248 charges, 291 lawsuits intervened 111 others. Enforcement Statistics Litigation (as visited Nov. 18, 2001), http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/enforcement.html. contrast, 21,032 2000. Administrative Office, Judicial Business Table C2A (Sept. 30, 2000). numbers less percent anti-discrimination Indeed, cause, five Surely access negligible Thomas notes interpretation depend how year. n.14 (dissenting opinion). yet, predicts nullity; 12, discourag[e] use agreements; 14, discourage entering 16. highly implausible years. speculating about employers, think worth recognizing implicitly recognizes distinction qualifying description determining 4, 6. 812 (holding waived forum). construction relating specified California apply. invoked pending resolution related third bound rulings possible. pre-empt confer time; directing manner provided [the parties] 498 474475 4). Similarly, enables expand range beyond Our 52 (1995), position. Mastrobuono, reiterated governs choice-of-law ambiguous, 62. 60, standard review, much clear, direct respect determines [b]y agreeing forgo substantive afforded statute; submits arbitral, judicial, [Mitsubishi 628 (1985)]. extent construed prerogative enforce whatever sees fit, obscured crucial ran afoul precedent. remedy available, little incentive percentage force becomes Voluntary Worker Disputes Endorsed Groups, Wall St. June 1997, p. B2 (reporting estimates 3.5 million designating administer proceedings), pool choose best likely get smaller become distorted. generally reluctant approve jeopardize ability select sample Cf. Shell Oil 466 54, 69 (1984) ([I]t Commissions systemic impaired); 28 whom Chief Scalia join, dissenting. 29 holds today Commission) employer. conflicts basic principle victim him. explicit contrary, himself. affirm Appeals. 30 Before Scott filled application. providing 31 falls comfortably [a] enforceable. contest laws, discharged V), compulsory (1991) Age Discrimination 1967 (ADEA), 621 arbitration).1 therefore signing or, consequently, himself himself, asking damages.2 39-40. responses interrogatories directives produce day stated unambiguously: All recovered Defendant Employer directly Mr. Employer. 52. admitted bring[ing] Baker.3 51. 33 By allowing concludes conclusion rests following premise advanced EEOC: An brings.4 17. contends [it] listed forms referring types (including backpay) well (compensatory damages). 1718. Endorsing Ante, 7. 34 provision. 2000e5(f)(1), entitlement remedy. Rather, decide (Emphasis added.) Whether EEOC.5 Albemarle Paper Moody, 422 405, 415-416 (1975) (The [Title VII] calling another, choices are, course, left instance courts); Selgas Airlines, 9, 13, n.2 (CA1 1997) (It fashion comprised available). 35 Had wished knew draft effect. 2000e16(b) (providing 2000e16(a)s prohibition agencies through pay, section). declined empowered employers. Both original version Senate powers possessed National Labor Relations adjudicate implement H.R. 1746, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 706(h) (1971), S. 2515, 4(h) reprinted Legislative History pp. 78, 164-165. bills amended, floor Houses replace cease-and-desist power 117 Cong. Rec. 32088-32111 (1971); 118 3965-3979 (1972). 36 thus entitles neither lawsuit, establishing law.6 cases, governs, requires case.7 37 usurp traditional constitutes necessary examine here, notwithstanding reasons, conclude doing 38 begin with, litigates ultimate beneficiary relevance circumstances change litigating fashioning remedy.8 39 result, whose wish lawsuit. signs waive behalf. Cosmair, 821 1085, 1091 (CA5 1987); 1543 Guidance Waivers Under Other Laws, Compliance Manual (BNA) N:2345, N:2347 (Apr. (hereinafter Manual) (recognizing valid precludes recovering employee). addition, lawsuit (1982). unilateral rejects Harris Chernin, 1286, 1291 (CA7 1993). 40 aforementioned situations, applies: able bringing therefore, 41 derivative argues [w]e ante, 18. attacks straw man turn wholly Like below, declaratory broad-based dependent three argument 24; (1980); Once nature properly understood, apparent none them suggests allowed addressed inadequate 32. Rejecting argument, noted Ibid. 44 Conspicuously absent suggestion ibid. 45 reaching conclusion, sure, undoubtedly acts preventing dual function, anything detracts proposition secure role.9 N:2346 (citing supra, 326). compliance manual, every carries potential relief: partys N:2346. reason eliminate recovery, [but] interfere validly N:2347.10 47 cited [u]nlike typical litigant run, refrain commencing civil until administrative conflict timetable established 368369. Precluding way impede discharging duties statute. Occidental: quickly B 48 Not contravene embodied FAA. (1983). 49 Part I, implicated [i]t 14. misses point. arbitrate. instead nullity. believe compels former course.11 50 circumstances, eviscerates liberates consequences gains anything, worse off brings continue utilize future. face prospect defending itself different forums precisely 51 court.12 Given reasoning proverbial handwriting wall. indeed 11, Should unfavorable jurisprudence proposition: decides abide Reconciling seem impossible task mockery rationale here: Assuming means says, going forward, adjust awards avoid recovery. instance, $20,000 actually entitled $100,000 additional $80,000 Suppose, situation reversed: $100,000, Will return employer? seriously doubt it. 53 places utilizing serious disadvantage. Their bites appleone EEOCand favorable rulings. discourages completely C 54 explicitly ibid., sets path logical principled stopping [t]he puts enter longer 55 mootness observation, seems largely beside go settles moot F.2d, 1541-1544. 56 real permitted thing Scherk Alberto-Culver 417 506, 511 (1974) (noting contracts (citation omitted)). reasoning, forecloses surely rul[e] barring 12-13. Unfortunately, logic involvement. 28. More importantly, frustrate expedite discrimination, 221; Life, 364-365, 12212 (encouraging alternative resolution, negotiations, ADA). 58 sanctioned today, path. stated, liberty pick congressional enactments, capable co-existence, duty intention effective. Pittsburgh Lake Erie R.Co. Railway Executives Assn., 491 490, 510 (1989). easily reconciled 59 indicated ADA's interpreted undermines places, encouraged itself, stated: Where law, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, finding, mini-trials, chapter. Second, used virtually identical encourage 1991. Pub. L. 102166, 118, 1081.13 60 consented Reply Remarkably, questions step. 22, view principle, nowhere 12212. law. Consequently, 61 agreements.14 62 last years, holding, applies state-law pre-empts statutes. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. Dobson, 513 265 (1995); Southland Keating, 465 (1984). always area, Allied-Bruce, 285297 dissenting), me what's good goose gander. impose absence Southland, 2530 (O'Connor, refuse interpret compatible especially 63 utter lack rooted notion treated differently context thought, decisively repudiated Gilmer. 2728 enforced contravening important social furthered ADEA). 64 respectfully dissent. Admittedly, involves ADEA. why assessing evinced issue. Chrysler-Plymouth, (1985). Here, fall purview encourages statute: fact-finding, mini-trials [Act]. discriminatory asked institute policies, programs opportunities qualified disabilities, practices. 39. appealed ruling. 813, n.3 102(a) 12112(a), mentioned instances part incorporates VII]. 12117(a). That applicable 2000e5(g). points gives 2000e5(f)(3). Since say matter, negate ex ante 2123. wisely, heavily prevents choosing 806807. admits much. Contradicting earlier assertion added), judge 12. legal acting 1071, addition 2000e5(g)(1). Nothing 1981a(a), alters fundamental judiciary (of statute) plaintiff to. absolute proven despite operation doctrines bar, accord satisfaction, case) hand. reason, us awarding arises adjudicated manner. certain consistently represents answers numerous attorneys attorney-client relationship communications privileged. Johnson Higgins, 1998 Dist. LEXIS 17612, *1 (SDNY, 5, 1998); McDonnell Douglas 948 F.Supp. (ED Mo. 1996). McKennon Nashville Banner Publishing 352, 357358 (1995). serving broader unique vindicating comes fore. motivation concerned reasons n.9. explain, differs meaningful compelled vast parallel Maltby, Private Justice: Rights, Colum. Human L.Rev. 29, (1998) average nine months almost years). Acts title. Among 109, 1071. relatively few lawsuits. my harmonious proper implication long opts

Category: 6