such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2.” Doctor’s Assocs., Inc., v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S. Ct. 1652, 134 L. Ed. 2d 902 (1996); see also Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 281, 115 S. Ct. 834, 130 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1995). However, courts may not refuse to enforce arbitration agreements under state laws which apply only to such agreements, Doctor’s Associates, 517 U.S. at 687 (citing Allied-B eld that in instances where a valid individual employee-employer arbitration agreement exists, the FAA requires that employees arbitrate federal and state law discrimination claims. See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 27-28, 111 S. Ct. 1647, 114 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Perry, 482 U.S. at 491 (FAA preempts state
holding that age discrimination claim was subject to compulsory arbitration holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration holding that an agreement to submit age discrimination claims to arbitration does not constitute a waiver holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed