United States Ninth Circuit

No conflict exists between the purpose of Title VII and compulsory arbitration of Title VII claims, and the text of section 118 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not present any ambiguity suggesting that it may be intended to preclude compulsory arbitration.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/27/2003
• Decided 09/30/2003
• Published 09/30/2003

Judges

• Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, REINHARDT, RYMER, TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Cliff Palefsky, McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, San Francisco, CA, for intervenor Donald Lagatree, and for amici curiae National Employment Lawyers Association and American Association of Retired Persons., Robert F. Walker, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae The Employers Group., David S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, WI, and John M. True, Leonard Carder, LLP, Oakland, CA, for amici curiae George Miller, Barney Frank, Dennis J. Kucinich, John Conyers, Jr., Robert E. Andrews, William D. Delahunt, Harold E. Ford, Jr., Ron Kind, Edward J. Markey, Major R. Owens, Donald M. Payne, Hilda L. Solis, John F. Tierney, and Lynn L. Woolsey, Members of the United States House of Representatives., Ann Elizabeth Reesman, McGuiness Norris & Williams, LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Equal Employment Advisory Council and LPA, Inc.


• For Appellees:
  
• Charles A. Bird, Kelly Capen Douglas, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellant-appellee., Dori Bernstein, EEOC, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee-appellant.