Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.: Observations on an Expanded Role for the Labor Arbitrator

The Supreme Court's decision in Gilmer v. Interstate/lohnson Lane Corp. potentially signifies an expanded role for the labor arbitrator in the resolution of employment-related claims. Under the Steelworkers trilogy, labor arbitrators' expertise was perceived as being limited to matters of the shop, and so labor arbitrators' authority was limited by the Court to those areas. By compelling the arbitration of Gilmer's Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) claim, the Court firmly embraced an increased respect for the expertise of arbitrators, and signalled a willingness to depart from the limitations imposed by the Steelworkers trilogy on the role of labor arbitrators. These comments address the implications of Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. [1] when applied to traditional agreement-based labor arbitration. Gilmer was required as a condition of his employment with Interstate to register as a securities representative with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). According to the Supreme Court, the registration application "provided, among other things, that Gilmer 'agree[d] to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy' arising between him and Interstate 'that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions or by-laws of the [NYSE]'" [1, at 1650]. One of the NYSE rules provided for the arbitration of '''[a]ny controversy" between Gilmer and Interstate "'arising out of [Gilmer's] employment or termination of employment" [1, at 1651]. The case involved Gilmer's efforts to bring a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in federal court, rather than submit it to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement