Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), with the important rights created and protected by federal civil rights legislation. In the past, many have viewed mandatory arbitration in the employment context and the goals of civil rights legislation as irreconcilable, with the former understood as a means for employers to evade the purposes of the latter. The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly “rejected generalized attacks on arbitration that rest on suspicion of arbitration as a method of weakening the protections afforded in the substantive law.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89-90, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) (quotation omitted). See also Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the Supreme Court has emphasized
holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists recognizing a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration in the faa holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the faa holding the doddfrank act prohibition on arbitration agreements did not invalidate all arbitration agreements because njothing in the statutes context suggests that congress sought to bar arbitration of every claim if the arbitration agreement in question did not exempt doddfrank claims holding that the framework for determining any disputed issues concerning arbitration must be determined in the context of the faa