Saint Clair Adams had been hired as a sales counselor by Circuit City
             Stores, Inc., in California. As a condition of employment, he was required
             to sign an agreement that any disputes that arose between Adams and his
             employer would be settled by arbitration. Despite that, Adams sued Circuit
             City Stores, Inc., in state court for various discrimination complaints.
             The Ninth Court of Appeals in California held that "Title VII
             disputes cannot be made subject to compulsory arbitration agreements" as
             they do not constitute interstate commerce' as specified in the Federal
             Arbitration Act (FAA). (King, 2001, Jones Day Web site)
             The facts in the case, as it began, are simple: Adams signed an
             employment contract that demanded arbitration rather than lawsuits to
             settle issues between employer and employee. When such an issue arose,
             however, Adams decided to pursue it in court rather than seek arbitration.
             Circuit City Stores, Inc., acted to compel Adams to enter into arbitration.
             The Ninth Circuit Court, contrary to the majority of other Circuit Courts,
             held that the FAA was written in such a way as to exclude all employment
             agreements from the reach of the demands of the FAA. The Supreme Court
             reversed the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, saying that in fact the only
             agreements not subject to arbitration under FAA pertained to seamen and
             When the case got to the Supreme Court, it was clear that Adams
             wanted the Court to find with the Ninth Circuit Court, which would open the
             way for Adams to litigate the employment issues. Circuit City Stores,
             Inc., wanted the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court so that it could
             settle the dispute through arbitration. At that point, the facts of the
             case as originally filed were almost irrelevant. It did not matter what
             the specific EEOC violation by Circuit City Stores, Inc. might have been.
             What mattered at that point w...