to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Discussion The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq. (“FAA”), governs the interpretation of the arbitration provision in this matter. Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §2, arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract" 9 U.S.C. §2 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has clearly stated that “contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, maybe applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening §2 [of the FAA].” Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996); see also Murray v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, Local 400, 289 F.3d 297, 302 (4th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). In addressing the use of general contract
recognizing that the faa specifically contemplates that parties may also seek revocation of an arbitration agreement on grounds of unconscionability holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable holding that faa was inapplicable where parties involved in action are not parties to an arbitration agreement under which issues are referable to arbitration holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for unconscionability