363 U.S. 574 (1960) Cited 5,612 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that grievance machinery “is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government” and the courts should not deny an order to arbitrate “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute”
Holding that under the FAA, a court "may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when . . . the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration"
Holding that where an employee is facing an employer with overwhelming bargaining power that has drafted an arbitration clause, and presented it to the employee on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the clause is procedurally unconscionable
Finding plaintiff failed to identify anything "in either the text or legislative history of the FLSA that indicates a congressional intent to bar employees from agreeing to arbitrate FLSA claims individually, nor is there an 'inherent conflict' between the FLSA and the FAA"
Holding that protection from retaliation for "fil[ing] charges or giv[ing] testimony" under the National Labor Relations Act extends to an employee who gave a written sworn statement to an NLRB examiner