## Facts

- Robert D. Gilmer worked for Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation as a securities professional.
- As a condition of employment, Gilmer registered with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) using a standard industry registration form.
- The registration form included an agreement to arbitrate disputes required to be arbitrated under the rules of the registered organizations.
- NYSE Rule 347 required arbitration of employment-related controversies between a registered representative and a member organization.
- Interstate terminated Gilmer at age 62.
- Gilmer filed an EEOC charge and then sued in federal court alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
- Interstate moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relying on the registration form and NYSE rules.

## Issues

1. Whether an ADEA claim may be subjected to compulsory arbitration under the FAA pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a securities registration application.
2. Whether Congress, in the ADEA, intended to preclude enforcement of agreements requiring arbitration of ADEA claims.
3. Whether asserted limits of the NYSE arbitral forum (discovery, neutrality, costs, and mandatory nature) render arbitration inadequate for vindicating ADEA rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit and held that Gilmer’s ADEA claim was subject to compulsory arbitration under the FAA.
- The Court enforced the arbitration agreement because the ADEA contains no explicit statutory bar to arbitration and no showing of an inherent conflict between arbitration and the ADEA’s purposes.
- The Court rejected generalized challenges to NYSE arbitration procedures as insufficient to invalidate the agreement.
- The Court distinguished prior decisions involving arbitration under collective bargaining agreements and questions of preclusion rather than FAA enforceability.
- Justice Stevens dissented (joined by Justice Marshall), arguing that compulsory arbitration was inconsistent with the public character of ADEA rights and earlier precedent.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory claims may be arbitrated under the FAA unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise in the statute’s text, history, or purpose.
- A party opposing arbitration bears the burden to show that arbitration is incompatible with the statute’s remedial scheme or objectives.
- Agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim does not waive substantive statutory rights; it changes only the forum for resolving them.
- The existence of an enforcement role for an agency (such as the EEOC) does not, by itself, bar arbitration of private statutory claims; individuals may still file charges, and the agency retains independent authority.
- General objections based on unequal bargaining power or mandatory employment conditions do not defeat arbitration absent a contract-law basis for invalidation (e.g., fraud, duress, or unconscionability).

## Conclusion

The Court held that ADEA claims are arbitrable under the FAA when covered by an agreement to arbitrate, and it compelled arbitration because the ADEA does not bar arbitration and the asserted procedural concerns did not show that the arbitral forum could not adequately enforce statutory rights.


Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)