Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Morrison v. Circuit City Stores

Morrison v. Circuit City Stores

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

March 20, 2002, Argued ; January 30, 2003, Decided ; January 30, 2003, Filed

Nos. 99-4099/99-5897

Opinion

 [***3]  [*652]   KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. These cases, consolidated for purposes of en banc review, involve the interaction in the employment context of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., with federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both of the employees involved, Lillian Pebbles Morrison and Mark F. Shankle, were required to sign arbitration agreements as conditions of their employment, Morrison with Circuit City Stores, Inc. ("Circuit City"), and Shankle with the Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc. ("Pep Boys"). Morrison and Shankle both sought to sue their former employers in court for discrimination after termination. In Morrison's case, the district court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and thus stayed Morrison's lawsuit pending arbitration. In Shankle's case, the district court held the agreement unenforceable and stayed [**3]  arbitration pending litigation. We ordered a consolidated en banc hearing to address the important issues presented in these cases regarding mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context.

The proper resolution of these appeals requires that we carefully reconcile the "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements," Moses H. Cone Memorial  [*653]  Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765, 103 S. Ct. 927 (1983), with the important rights created and protected by federal civil rights legislation. In the past, many have viewed mandatory arbitration in the employment context and the goals of civil rights legislation as irreconcilable, with the former understood as a means for employers to evade the purposes of the latter. The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly "rejected generalized attacks on arbitration that rest on suspicion of arbitration as a method of weakening the protections afforded in the substantive law." Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v.  [***4]  Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89-90, 148 L. Ed. 2d 373, 121 S. Ct. 513 (2000) (quotation omitted). See also  Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 149 L. Ed. 2d 234, 121 S. Ct. 1302 (2001) [**4]  (holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the FAA).

Instead, the Supreme Court has emphasized that ] "federal statutory claims may be the subject of arbitration agreements . . . enforceable pursuant to the FAA because the agreement only determines the choice of forum." EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 295 n.10, 151 L. Ed. 2d 755, 122 S. Ct. 754 (2002). Thus, under the correct reconciliation of the sometimes-perceived conflict between arbitration agreements in the employment context and federal anti-discrimination laws, the choice to arbitrate statutory claims will change only the forum of decision and not the substantive protections afforded by the statutes in question. "By agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum." Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444, 105 S. Ct. 3346 (1985).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

317 F.3d 646 *; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1456 **; 2003 FED App. 0033P (6th Cir.) ***; 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1697

LILLIAN PEBBLES MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-5897 MARK F. SHANKLE, SR., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEP BOYS -- MANNY, MOE & JACK, INC. et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Counsel Corrected February 6, 2003.

Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Courts for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati and the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. Nos. 99-00017; 98-00963. S. Arthur Spiegel, John T. Nixon, District Judges.

 Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 815, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15410 (S.D. Ohio 1999).

Disposition: AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

arbitration, arbitration agreement, costs, cost-splitting, arbitral forum, deter, unenforceable, district court, vindicate, provisions, arbitration costs, parties, terms, remedies, cases, deterrent, rights, statutory right, employees, claimant, arbitration award, reviewing court, present case, front pay, similarly situated, punitive damages, federal statute, courts, judicial review, statutory claim

Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Arbitration Clauses, Civil Procedure, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, General Overview, Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitration Agreements, Pretrial Matters, Mandatory ADR, International Trade Law, Dispute Resolution, International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration, Discrimination, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Labor & Employment Law, Conditions & Terms, Arbitration Provisions, Enforcement, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Title VII Discrimination, Remedies, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Collective Bargaining & Labor Relations, Labor Arbitration, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Judicial Review, Validity of ADR Methods, Employment Contracts, Appeals, De Novo Review, Appellate Jurisdiction, Contract Formation, Acceptance, Meeting of Minds, Contracts Law, Defenses, Unconscionability, Standards of Performance, Illusory Promises, Consideration, Sufficient Consideration, Waivers, Statute of Limitations, Waiver, Civil Rights Law, Protection of Rights, Procedural Matters, Costs & Attorney Fees, Statutory Attorney Fee Awards, Costs & Attorney Fees, Affirmative & Equitable Relief, Injunctions, Wrongful Termination, Reinstatement, Amendments, Contractual Relations & Housing, Equal Rights Under the Law (sec. 1981), Remedies, Damages, Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages, Backpay, Attorney Fees & Expenses, Prevailing Parties, Types of Contracts, Divisible Contracts, Contract Interpretation, Severability, Severability Clauses, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Free Press, Illegal Bargains, Impossibility of Performance, Authority to Adjudicate