that the trial court erred in ordering the arbitration of her claims. WRIT DENIED. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur. LYONS, J., concurs specially. ALMON, SHORES, KENNEDY, and COOK, JJ., dissent. 1 . A direct appeal is the generally accepted method for obtaining review of a trial court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Clark, 558 So.2d 358, 360 (Ala.1990). A petition for a writ of mandamus is the generally accepted method for obtaining review of an order granting a motion to compel arbitration. Ex parte Alexander, 558 So.2d 364, 365 (Ala.1990). 2 . McNaughton does not contest that her employment involved interstate commerce. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Although the matter is not raised by
holding that the term commerce in the faa is to be broadly construed holding that the district court lacked the authority to compel arbitration  because the faa is inapplicable to employees who are engaged in interstate commerce recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding that all arbitration provisions dealing with transactions involving interstate commerce are subject to the faa recognizing that the faa is applicable to only those transactions involving interstate commerce