## Facts

- Lisa Parisi worked at Goldman Sachs starting in 1999 and became a Managing Director in 2003.
- Upon promotion, Parisi signed an agreement requiring binding arbitration of any employment-related dispute as the exclusive remedy.
- The arbitration clause did not provide for class or collective arbitration.
- Goldman terminated Parisi in November 2008.
- In 2010, Parisi and others filed a putative class action alleging sex discrimination in pay, promotions, evaluations, and related employment practices under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law.
- Goldman moved under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration on an individual basis.
- The district court denied the motion, reasoning that barring class-wide proceedings would prevent Parisi from pursuing a Title VII “pattern-or-practice” theory and thus waive a substantive statutory right.

## Issues

1. Whether compelling individual arbitration of Parisi’s Title VII claims unlawfully waives a substantive right to bring a “pattern-or-practice” claim.
2. Whether the FAA’s effective-vindication doctrine permits refusing to enforce the arbitration clause because individual arbitration would make it impracticable to pursue systemic discrimination allegations.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed and directed that Parisi’s claims proceed in individual arbitration.
- The court held Title VII provides no substantive, nonwaivable right for a private plaintiff to pursue a “pattern-or-practice” claim as a distinct cause of action.
- The court treated “pattern-or-practice” as a method of proof and class procedures as procedural mechanisms, not substantive statutory rights.
- The court concluded the arbitration clause did not prospectively waive Title VII remedies because Parisi could still seek the statute’s full substantive relief in arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitration agreements governed by the FAA must be enforced according to their terms absent a contrary congressional command.
- Title VII “pattern-or-practice” is not an independent substantive claim for private plaintiffs; it is an evidentiary framework for proving discrimination.
- Waiver of class procedures through an arbitration agreement is generally permissible because class treatment is procedural rather than substantive.
- The effective-vindication doctrine targets arbitration provisions that prospectively waive statutory remedies; it is not triggered merely because individual arbitration may be less effective for pursuing aggregate or systemic theories.
- When an arbitration agreement is silent on class arbitration, courts may not impose class arbitration and will enforce individual arbitration.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required Parisi to arbitrate her Title VII discrimination claims individually, holding that Title VII does not grant a substantive right to pursue pattern-or-practice litigation through class procedures and that individual arbitration still permits full vindication of statutory remedies.


Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 710 F.3d 483 (2d Cir. 2013)