This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, filed an employment-discrimination suit against D. D filed a motion under the FAA to dismiss or stay the proceedings, 9 U.S.C. § 3, and to compel arbitration. The Agreement between the parties provided for arbitration of all “past, present or future” disputes arising out of employment including “claims for discrimination” and “claims for violation of any federal . . . law.” It also provided that “the Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of the Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.” P claimed the arbitration agreement in question is clearly unenforceable in that it is unconscionable” under Nevada law. D claimed that P's unconscionability claim was not properly before the court because P had expressly agreed that the arbitrator would have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute about the enforceability of the Agreement. The court granted D's motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. The court reversed on the question of who (the court or arbitrator) had the authority to decide whether the Agreement is enforceable. It held that where “a party challenges an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, and thus asserts that he could not meaningfully assent to the agreement, the threshold question of unconscionability is for the court.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.