for judicial determination unless the parties provide other wise.” Partain v. Upstate Automotive Group, 386 S.C. 488, 491, 689 S.E.2d 602, 603 (2010). “The determination of whether a claim is subject to arbitration is subject to de novo review.” Id. (citing Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 240, 676 S.E.2d 320, 323) (2009). However, in deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular grievance to arbitration, a court is not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims. Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 596, 553 S.E.2d 110, 118 (2001). III. Generally, any arbitration agreement affecting interstate commerce, such as the one at issue, is subject to the FAA. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001) (<HOLDING>); see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. Once it is
holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation holding that contracts for an indefinite period are excluded from the statutes coverage holding that in the first amendment employment context harassing speech must constitute constructive adverse employment action to be actionable holding that in the employment context only transportation workers employment contracts are exempted from the faas coverage holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims