Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1991Docket #87260
114 L. Ed. 2d 26 111 S. Ct. 1647 500 U.S. 20 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2529 59 U.S.L.W. 4407 91 Daily Journal DAR 5501 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3498 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,704 55 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1116 Alternative Dispute Resolution Employment Law Civil Procedure Contracts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a claim of age discrimination under the ADEA could be forced into binding arbitration because the employee had signed a securities registration application containing a mandatory arbitration clause, establishing that statutory employment claims are generally arbitrable.

Legal Significance: This landmark case established that mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements for statutory employment discrimination claims are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). It significantly shifted such disputes from courts to arbitral forums and distinguished prior precedent involving collective bargaining agreements.

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Robert Gilmer was hired by Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. as a Manager of Financial Services. As a condition of employment, Gilmer was required to register as a securities representative with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). His registration application included a clause agreeing to arbitrate any dispute with his employer arising out of his employment or termination, as required by NYSE rules. After Interstate terminated his employment at age 62, Gilmer filed a suit in federal court alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Interstate filed a motion to compel arbitration, citing the agreement in Gilmer’s registration application and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The District Court denied the motion, relying on Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., but the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding no congressional intent in the ADEA to preclude the enforcement of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the arbitrability of ADEA claims.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is a claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 subject to compulsory arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement contained in a securities registration application?

Yes. A claim under the ADEA can be subjected to compulsory arbitration. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Except

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Is a claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 subject to compulsory arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement contained in a securities registration application?

Conclusion

This decision validated the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements for individual Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi

Legal Rule

A statutory claim is subject to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, enforceable under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate ve

Legal Analysis

The Court began its analysis by affirming the FAA's "liberal federal policy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) can
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidata

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is practice.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+