EEOC Not Bound By Arbitration Agreements

March 1, 2002

On January 15, 2002, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case closely watched by the EEOC, employers and lawyers around the nation, EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. At issue was whether an employee's agreement to arbitrate all disputes with his employer, rather than seek relief in court, prevented the EEOC from filing suit on the employee's behalf. The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements between employers and employees do not preclude the EEOC from filing suit on behalf of employees who believe they have been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

At issue in Waffle House was an arbitration agreement contained on the company's application that all prospective employees were required to sign. The agreement stated that any claim or dispute regarding the applicant's employment would be "settled by binding arbitration." Eric Baker suffered a seizure at work and was subsequently terminated. Baker did not initiate arbitration proceedings, but instead filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging his termination was based on his seizure, thus violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The EEOC filed suit on Baker's behalf against Waffle House. Waffle House, however, sought to compel arbitration based on Baker's signature of the arbitration agreement. The appellate court held that the arbitration agreement was valid. The court further held that, while the arbitration agreement did not prevent the EEOC from filing suit against Waffle House, the agreement did prevent the EEOC from recovering monetary damages on Baker's behalf. In other words, the EEOC could obtain injunctive relief (such as a court order prohibiting Waffle House from discriminating against employees because of disability), but it could not win money from Waffle House.

Baker appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision. While recognizing the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court also recognized the EEOC's statutory authority to bring suits for injunctive and monetary relief. Therefore, since the EEOC had not executed the arbitration agreement, it had not relinquished that statutory authority. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the EEOC's enforcement power was not affected by the arbitration agreement and it could seek injunctive and monetary relief in court against Waffle House.

After the Supreme Court's ruling, it is clear that arbitration agreements will not provide employers a bulletproof shield from the EEOC. Nonetheless, such agreements can serve as valuable tools to control litigation costs. The reality is, of the almost 80,000 charges of discrimination received by the EEOC in the year 2000, the EEOC filed only 291 lawsuits nationwide.

As a practical matter, the threat of litigation is much greater from employees than it is from the EEOC. Arbitration agreements, when properly drawn, can still prevent employees from filing suit in court, even after the Waffle House decision.

Firm Highlights


COVID-19 Response Team - Resources and Updates


The Importance of Strategic Transitions

Transitions versus change, what’s the destination and why is this important for a business?  Kevin talks with Gwen Gierke from Gierke Jungbauer on how they help to manage transitions. Transition happens in three stages: the ending, the neutral zone, and...


The Tale of OCS and the Coronavirus

How has Opportunity Community Services survived during this pandemic and Phase 1? Rose Kukwa of Opportunity Community Services and Dennis Van Norman with Van Norman & Associates share their experience.  Rose and her team...


The 2020 HR Recap

We’ve made it to the recap episode! The good, the bad, the ugly, and everything in between. Join Kevin and Elaine (Lainey) Luthens as they discuss it all including FFCRA legislation, OSHA, what they...


Thompson Coe Saves Client $100Ks in Damages After 3-Day Trial


Supreme Court Reaffirms and Clarifies Ministerial Exception to Employment Discrimination Laws Under First Amendment’s Religion Clause


The COVID-19 Vaccine Part 1

News Item

Thompson Coe Welcomes Partners Kenya Bodden and Patrick Kelly



Individual Coverage HRA. What is it? What are the benefits and drawbacks? What companies are a good fit for ICHRAs versus group health plans? Kevin talks with Matt Hollister, President and CEO of Business...


U.S. Supreme Court Settles Issue of Title VII Protections for LGBTQ+ Employees

Headshot of Stephanie Rojo