parties, and one cannot be required to submit to arbitration a dispute which it has not agreed to submit to arbitration.” Simon v. Pfizer Inc., 398 F.3d 765, 775 (6th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). Keeping these countervailing principles in mind, this court has held that in deciding whether an issue is within the scope of an arbitration agreement courts should “ask if an action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue. If it could, it is likely outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 340 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir.2003). This court has applied this method to determine whether particular torts or challenges to the validity of the contract itself are within an arbitration clause. See, e.g., Fazio, 340 F.3d at 395-96 (<HOLDING>); Highlands Wellmont, 350 F.3d at 576-77
holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause holding that alleged theft of funds is within arbitration clause