Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane Corporation

Decision Date13 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-18,90-18
Citation114 L.Ed.2d 26,500 U.S. 20,111 S.Ct. 1647
PartiesRobert D. GILMER, Petitioner v. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORPORATION
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner Gilmer was required by respondent, his employer, to register as a securities representative with, among others, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). His registration application contained, inter alia, an agreement to arbitrate when required to by NYSE rules. NYSE Rule 347 provides for arbitration of any controversy arising out of a registered representative's employment or termination of employment. Respondent terminated Gilmer's employment at age 62. Thereafter, he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and brought suit in the District Court, alleging that he had been discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Respondent moved to compel arbitration, relying on the agreement in Gilmer's registration application and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court denied the motion, based on Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147—which held that an employee's suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not foreclosed by the prior submission of his claim to arbitration under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement—and because it concluded that Congress intended to protect ADEA claimants from a waiver of the judicial forum. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Held: An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration. Pp. 24-35.

(a) Statutory claims may be the subject of an arbitration agreement, enforceable pursuant to the FAA. See, e.g., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444. Since the FAA manifests a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765, and since neither the text nor the legislative history of the ADEA explicitly precludes arbitration, Gilmer is bound by his agreement to arbitrate unless he can show an inherent conflict between arbitration and the ADEA's underlying purposes. Pp. 24-26.

(b) There is no inconsistency between the important social policies furthered by the ADEA and enforcing agreements to arbitrate age discrimination claims. While arbitration focuses on specific disputes between the parties involved, so does judicial resolution of claims, yet both can further broader social purposes. Various other laws, including antitrust and securities laws and the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), are designed to advance important public policies, but claims under them are appropriate for arbitration. Nor will arbitration undermine the EEOC's role in ADEA enforcement, since an ADEA claimant is free to file an EEOC charge even if he is precluded from instituting suit; since the EEOC has independent authority to investigate age discrimination; since the ADEA does not indicate that Congress intended that the EEOC be involved in all disputes; and since an administrative agency's mere involvement in a statute's enforcement is insufficient to preclude arbitration, see, e.g., Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526. Moreover, compulsory arbitration does not improperly deprive claimants of the judicial forum provided for by the ADEA: Congress did not explicitly preclude arbitration or other nonjudicial claims resolutions; the ADEA's flexible approach to claims resolution, which permits the EEOC to pursue informal resolution methods, suggests that out-of-court dispute resolution is consistent with the statutory scheme; and arbitration is consistent with Congress' grant of concurrent jurisdiction over ADEA claims to state and federal courts, since arbitration also advances the objective of allowing claimants a broader right to select the dispute resolution forum. Pp. 27-29.

(c) Gilmer's challenges to the adequacy of arbitration procedures are insufficient to preclude arbitration. This Court declines to indulge his speculation that the parties and the arbitral body will not retain competent, conscientious, and impartial arbitrators, especially when both the NYSE rules and the FAA protect against biased panels. Nor is there merit to his argument that the limited discovery permitted in arbitration will make it difficult to prove age discrimination, since it is unlikely that such claims require more extensive discovery than RICO and antitrust claims, and since there has been no showing that the NYSE discovery provisions will prove insufficient to allow him a fair opportunity to prove his claim. His argument that arbitrators will not issue written opinions, resulting in a lack of public knowledge of employers' discriminatory policies, an inability to obtain effective appellate review, and a stifling of the law's development, is also rejected, since the NYSE rules require that arbitration awards be in writing and be made available to the public; since judicial decisions will continue to be issued for ADEA claimants without arbitration agreements; and since Gilmer's argument applies equally to settlements of ADEA claims. His argument that arbitration procedures are inadequate because they do not provide for broad equitable relief is unpersuasive as well, since arbitrators have the power to fashion equitable relief; since the NYSE rules do not restrict the type of relief an arbitrator may award and provide for collective relief; since the ADEA's provision for the possibility of collective action does not mean that individual attempts at conciliation are barred; and since arbitration agreements do not preclude the EEOC itself from seeking class-wide and equitable relief. Pp. 30-32.

(d) The unequal bargaining power between employers and employees is not a sufficient reason to hold that arbitration agreements are never enforceable in the employment context. Cf., e.g., Rodriguez de Quijas, supra, at 484, 109 S.Ct., at 1921-1922. Such a claim is best left for resolution in specific cases. Here, there is no indication that Gilmer, an experienced businessman, was coerced or defrauded into agreeing to the arbitration clause. P. 32-33.

(e) Gilmer's reliance on Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147, and its progeny, is also misplaced. Those cases involved the issue whether arbitration of contract-based claims precluded subsequent judicial resolution of statutory claims, not the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate statutory claims. The arbitration in those cases occurred in the context of a collective-bargaining agreement, and thus there was concern about the tension between collective representation and individual statutory rights that is not applicable in this case. And those cases were not decided under the FAA. Pp. 33-35.

895 F.2d 195, (CA4 1990) affirmed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. ----.

John T. Allred, Charlotte, N.C., for petitioner.

James B. Spears, Jr., Greenville, S.C., for respondent.

Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is whether a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., can be subjected to compulsory arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a securities registration application. The Court of Appeals held that it could, 895 F.2d 195 (CA4 1990), and we affirm.

I

Respondent Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation (Interstate) hired petitioner Robert Gilmer as a Manager of Financial Services in May 1981. As required by his employment, Gilmer registered as a securities representative with several stock exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). See App. 15-18. His registration application, entitled "Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer," provided, among other things, that Gilmer "agree[d] to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy" arising between him and Interstate "that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions or by-laws of the organizations with which I register." Id., at 18. Of relevance to this case, NYSE Rule 347 provides for arbitration of "[a]ny controversy between a registered representative and any member or member organization arising out of the employment or termination of employment of such registered representative." App. to Brief for Respondent 1.

Interstate terminated Gilmer's employment in 1987, at which time Gilmer was 62 years of age. After first filing an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Gilmer subsequently brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Interstate had discharged him because of his age, in violation of the ADEA. In response to Gilmer's complaint, Interstate filed in the District Court a motion to compel arbitration of the ADEA claim. In its motion, Interstate relied upon the arbitration agreement in Gilmer's registration application, as well as the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The District Court denied Interstate's motion, based on this Court's decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974), and because it concluded that "Congress intended to protect ADEA claimants from the waiver of a judicial forum." App. 87. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding "nothing in the text, legislative history, or underlying purposes of the ADEA indicating a congressional intent to preclude enforcement of arbitration agreements." 895 F.2d, at 197....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2722 cases
  • Bacon v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 7, 2018
    ...American courts, and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 500 U.S. 20, 24, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). Thus, the statute makes agreements to arbitrate "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable," 9 U.S.C. §......
  • Luchini v. Carmax, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • July 23, 2012
    ...by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than judicial, form.'" Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647 (1991) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628, 105 S.Ct. 1647 (1985)). "[U......
  • Castillo v. Cleannet USA, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • December 18, 2018
    ...the FAA and preventing employment discrimination under Title VII."). The court looked to Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 500 U.S. 20, 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (U.S. 1991), for guidance.In Gilmer , the plaintiff asserted a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment ......
  • In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 30, 2009
    ...cases which involved matters which, if ancillary, are certainly pertinent to this question. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991), involved a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Specific......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 firm's commentaries
  • Vacating Arbitration Awards
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 8, 2002
    ...Wilko and First Options was unexplained and unilluminated by any concrete application. Dictum in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 32 n.4, 114 L. Ed. 2d 26, 111 S. Ct. 1647 (1991), is similarly Id. at 7. The Court went on to state its position in regard to manifest disre......
  • Supreme Court Decision Alert - January 10, 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 12, 2012
    ...See 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (same); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (Securities Act of 1933); Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMa......
  • Illinois Bankruptcy Court: Whether Dispute Is Core Or Non-Core Not "Bright Line" In Determining Enforceability Of Arbitration Clause
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 27, 2023
    ...to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue." Id. at 227; accord Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26 Guided by this mandate, in the past, the consensus among most courts addressing the issue has been that a bankruptcy court can adjudicate......
  • NLRB Rules Class Action Waivers Imposed As Condition Of Employment In Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Procedure Are Unlawful
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 13, 2012
    ...Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") as interpreted and applied in the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), and its progeny. In Gilmer, the Supreme Court held that an individual arbitration agreement may not lawfully require that a party fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
170 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Workers' Compensation Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • March 31, 2022
    ...1300 (W/D-1996), §7:99 Gillett v. LAUSD, 2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 44 (NPD-2010), §15:137 Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 US 20, 111 SCt 1647 (1991), §2:182 Gilmore v. Autoland Resale Center, 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 148 (NPD-2013), §§17:41, 22:222 Gines v. Neal El......
  • Customizing Employment Arbitration
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-1, November 2012
    • November 1, 2012
    ...Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012) (consumer credit card contracts). 6. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (employment discrimination claims). 7. See, e.g. , AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (holding that California law proh......
  • Chapter 1
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Work Place
    • Invalid date
    ...875, 70 F.E.P. Cases 272 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 432 (1996).[72] . See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation, 500 U.S. 20, 111 S. Ct. 1647, 114 L. Ed. 2d 26, 55 F.E.P. Cases 1116 (1991).[73] . Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 U.S. 728, 752, 101 S. Ct.......
  • Arbitration and Unconscionability
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 19-3, March 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...federal policy favoring arbitration agreements" (internal quotation marks omitted)). [64]. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 30 (1991) (citation omitted). [65]. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 634 (1985). [66]. Carrington, supra no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT