that such an agreement permits a court to force the EEOC into arbitration under the FAA. See Frank’s Nursery, 177 F.3d at 462 (observing that “courts may not treat the agreement of a private party to arbitrate her action as the agreement of the EEOC to arbitrate its action”); Kidder, Peabody, 156 F.3d at 301-02 (upholding the district court’s grant of the employer’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s ADEA suit seeking solely monetary damages but not addressing the issue of compelling the EEOC to arbitrate because the employer did not seek to do so). Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized implicitly that the EEOC, acting in its public role, is not bound by private arbitration agreements. See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Although a private arbitration agreement does
holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under  510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to termination holding that attorneys fees under adea may not be recovered against a defendant who was not an employer of the plaintiff holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs