10.2190/0QN4-NDNY-Y9KH-Q7BL 0QN4NDNYY9KHQ7BL 5 <i>Gardner-Denver</i> to <i>Gilmer:</i> The Facts and Possibilities for Arbitration 305 312 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 0QN4NDNYY9KHQ7BL.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=0QN4NDNYY9KHQ7BL 4 Kurt H. Decker Esq. Pennsylvania In <i>Alexander v. Gardner-Denver</i>, the United States Supreme Court found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) did not bar the arbitration of employment discrimination claims relating to sex, race, color, religion, or national origin or a subsequent Title VII suit. Recently, in <i>Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane Corp.</i>, the United States Supreme Court found that claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) could be subject to a compulsory arbitration agreement precluding further litigation. This article reviews the facts of <i>Gardner-Denver</i> and <i>Gilmer</i> to determine whether the Supreme Court's decisions in these cases can be reconciled to determine the scope of arbitration under the federal fair employment practice (FEP) statutes and an employer's alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure.