10.2190/4GQU-61M1-ULVL-X8CA 4GQU61M1ULVLX8CA 4 Arbitrating Employment Discrimination and Wrongful Discharge Claims: Possibilities and Practicalities 135 143 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 4GQU61M1ULVLX8CA.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=4GQU61M1ULVLX8CA 2 Robert Lusk Esq. Keller, Thoma, Schwarze, Schwarze, DuBay and Katz, Detroit, Michigan In <i>Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.</i>, 500 US___, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that age discrimination claims brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 USC §§621 <i>et seq.</i>, were subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC §§ <i>et seq.</i> This decision raises the prospect that all statutory and common law employment-based claims may be subjected to arbitration: a less expensive, less time-consuming, and often more predictable process than litigation. This article reviews the history of the arbitrability of employment claims, the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Gilmer</i>, and questions left unanswered by that decision. The author concludes that most employers will benefit from arbitrating employment-based claims. 500 U.S.___, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114, L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). 29 U.S.C.§§621 <i>et seq.</i> 9 U.S.C. §§1 <i>et seq.</i> 42 U.S.C.§§2000e <i>et seq.</i> Pub. L. No. 101-336. <i>Kulukudis Shipping Company, S.A. v. Amtorq Trading Co.</i>, 126 F.2d. 978 (2nd Cir. 1942). 473 U.S. 614, 105 SCt 3346, 87 LEd2d 444 (1985). 15 U.S.C. §§1 <i>et seq.</i> <i>Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon</i>, 482 U.S. 220, 107 Sct 2332, 96 Led2d 185 (1987). <i>Rodriequez de Quijas v. Shearson-American Express, Inc.</i>, 490 U.S. 477, 109 SCt 1917, 104 LEd2d 526 (1989). <i>Alexander v. Gardner Denver Co.</i>, 415 U.S. 36, 94 SCt 1011, 39 LEd2d 147 (1984). <i>Barrentine v. Arkansas Best Freight System Inc.</i>, 450 U.S. 728 101 SCt 1437, 67 LEd2d (1987). <i>Mcdonald v. City of West Branch</i>, 466 U.S. 284, 104 SCt 1799, 00 LEd2d 302 (1984). <i>Utley v. Goldman-Sachs & Co.</i>, 883 F.2d 184 (1st Cir. 1989). <i>Nicholson v. CPC International, Inc.</i>, 877 F.2d 221 (3rd Cir. 1989). <i>Alford v. Dean Whitter Reynolds, Inc.</i>, 905 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1990), <i>vac and remanded sub nom, Dean Whitter Reynolds Inc. v. Alford</i>, 500 US___, 111 SCt 2050, 114 LEd2d 456 1991, <i>rev and remanded</i>, 939 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1991). <i>Swenson v. Management Recruiters International, Inc.</i>, 858 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1988). <i>Cooper v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.</i>, 836 F.2d 1544 (10th Cir. 1988). <i>Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.</i>, 895 F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1990). <i>Dickstein v. duPont</i>, 443 F.2d 783 (1st Cir. 1971). Arbitrability of Disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act, 71 Ia. L. Rev. 1137, 1140, n. 32 (1986). <i>Fleck v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.</i>, 891 F.2d 1047 (2nd Cir. 1989). <i>Aspero v. Shearson American Express, Inc.</i>, 768 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1985). <i>Morgan v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham Company</i>, 729 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir. 1984). <i>Perry v. Thomas</i>, 482 U.S. 483, 107 SCt 2520, 96 LEd2d 426 (1987). <i>Hall v. Nomura Securities International, Inc.</i>, 219 Cal. App. 3d 43, 268 Cal. Rptr. 45 (1990). <i>Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v. DeCaro</i>, 577 F. Supp. 616 (W.D. Mo. 1983). <i>Roodvelt v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.</i>, 585 F.Supp. 770 (E.D. Pa. 1984). <i>Dean Whitter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd</i>, 470 U.S. 213, 223, 105 SCt 1238, 1244, 84 LEd2d 158 (1985). <i>Ryder v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania</i>, 850 F.2d 982 (3rd Cir. 1988). <i>Caldeira v. County of Kauai</i>, 866 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1989). <i>Cf. Lum v. City and County of Honolulu</i>, 728 F. Supp. 1452 (D. Hawaii 1989). <i>Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.</i>, 456 U.S. 461, 102 SCt 1883, 72 LEd2d 262 (1982). <i>University of Tennessee v. Elliott</i>, 478 U.S. 788, 106 SCt 2330, 92 LEd2d 635 (1986).