EEOC v. Waffle House, Incorporated (United States Supreme Court)

Consistent with NELF’s traditional support of the right of employers and employees to agree to arbitrate, instead of litigate, workplace disagreements, NELF filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in this employment dispute arising in the Fourth Circuit. On January 15, 2002, A divided Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with an employer does not bar the EEOC, as a plaintiff in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific remedies for discrimination. Eric Baker completed an application for employment at Waffle House in June 1994. That application contained an arbitration agreement. He was discharged on or about September 5, 1994 following a seizure he suffered at work. While the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission concluded that there was no reasonable cause to find that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC concluded otherwise. The EEOC then filed suit in federal court seeking relief solely on behalf of Baker. When Waffle House moved to compel arbitration of Baker’s claim, the District Court denied that motion concluding that Baker had not agreed to arbitration. The Fourth Circuit reversed and held that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding. The court further held that while the EEOC could not be required to arbitrate its own claims against Waffle House by virtue of an employee’s agreement to arbitrate, the EEOC could not pursue "make-whole" relief on Mr. Baker’s behalf in a judicial forum. The United States Supreme Court granted the EEOC’s cert. petition. The Court accepted the following question for review: "Whether an employee’s agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with an employer bars the [EEOC], as a plaintiff in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific remedies for discrimination against the employee, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages." The EEOC and its many amici contended that the EEOC’s statutory right to enforce the ADA by going to court to seek victim-specific relief, including backpay, reinstatement, and damages is not, and should not be, affected by an employee’s agreement to a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration provision. The Sixth Circuit has sided with the EEOC and the Second and Fourth Circuits have disagreed. NELF’s brief addressed the fact that the Supreme Court  very recently upheld the policy of favoring agreements to arbitrate (Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp, 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991), and did so specifically in the context of employment in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). Additionally, NELF’s brief countered the statistical assertion, made by opposing amici, that court battles favor employees while arbitral fora provide better decisions for employers. Unfortunately, the Court's decision now leaves both employers and employees uncertain of the value and enforceability of arbitration agreements.