Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 1, No. 2

Preview Page

ARTICLES

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams:
The End of the Long and Winding Road to a
National Policy Favoring the Arbitration of
Employment Disputes

By Ronald M. Green, Evan J. Spelfogel and Barry Asen

I. INTRODUCTION
In Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, the United States Supreme
Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that employers could require most
employees to resolve their employment-related disputes through
arbitration rather than in a judicial forum.4 Circuit City is an
employment law landmark. It will change dynamics of employeeemployer
relations and the practice of labor and employment law in the
twenty-first century. With increasing frequency, employment disputes
will be decided by arbitrators rather than by judges and juries.
The practical reason for Circuit City is evident. From 1970 to 1989,
the number of employment discrimination cases filed in federal court
rose from 336 to 7,613, a staggering increase of more than 2,000%.5 In
1984, in the midst of this employment litigation explosion, Chief Justice
Burger remarked: “[Courtroom litigation] is a mistake that must be
corrected . . . [f]or some disputes, trials will be the only means, but for
many claims, trials by adversarial contest must in time go the way of the
ancient trial by battle and blood. Our system is too costly, too painful,
too destructive, too inefficient for a truly civilized people.”6
The Chief Justice’s admonition notwithstanding, the number of
employment discrimination complaints filed in federal court from 1990