an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum.” Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647 (quotation omitted). In this case, however, the enforcement of the arbitration agreement would require Morrison to forego her substantive rights to the full panoply of remedies under Title VII and would thereby contravene Congress’s intent to utilize certain damages as a tool for compensating victims of discrimination and for deterring employment discrimination more broadly. The critical question is not whether a claimant may obtain some amount of the entire range of remedies under Title VII, but whether the limitation on remedies at issue undermines the rights protected by the statute. See Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 26-27, 111 S.Ct. 1647. See also McCaskill v. SCI Mgmt. Corp., 285 F.3d 623, 626 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Perez v. Globe Airport Sec. Servs., Inc., 253
holding that an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it prohibited an award of punitive damages which was available to the plaintiff under title vii holding that arbitration agreement that did not provide for award of attorney fees to successful title vii claimant was unenforceable because the right to attorneys fees  is central to the ability of persons to seek redress from violations of title vii holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration holding that   19853 may not be invoked to redress violations of title vii