InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Robert D. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of an arbitration clause to compel arbitration of statutory Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 claims.

500 U.S. 20 · No. 90-18 · 1990 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided May 13, 1991 · argued Jan 14, 1991

Unions · Arbitration

Majority opinion: Byron White

The voteMajorityDissent

7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Affirmed. Robert D. Gilmer lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Robert D. Gilmer was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), is a 1991 case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of an arbitration clause to compel arbitration of statutory Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 claims. A regional brokerage house, Interstate Johnson Lane later became part of Wachovia Securities.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1990 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallStevensBlackmunWhiteSouterO'ConnorKennedyScaliaRehnquist

Majority(7)

Dissent(2)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Robert D. GilmerEmployee, or job applicant
Respondent
Interstate/Johnson Lane CorporationEmployer
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Age Discrimination in Employment
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. May 13, 1991DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Robert D. Gilmer lost.
  2. Jan 14, 1991ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the North Carolina Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

36 other argued cases since 1946 on arbitration, newest first.

  1. Smith v. Spizzirri601 U.S. 472May 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 472Unions9–0Unanimous band

  2. Bissonnette v. Lepage Bakeries Park St., LLC601 U.S. 246Apr 12, 2024 · 601 U.S. 246Unions9–0Unanimous band

  3. Viking River Cruises v. Moriana142 S. Ct. 1906Jun 15, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1906Unions8–18–1 band
  4. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon142 S. Ct. 1783Jun 6, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1783Unions8–0Unanimous band

  5. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.142 S. Ct. 1708May 23, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1708Unions9–0Unanimous band

  6. Badgerow v. Walters142 S. Ct. 1310Mar 31, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1310Unions8–18–1 band

  7. Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela139 S. Ct. 1407Apr 24, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1407Unions5–45–4 band

  8. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira139 S. Ct. 532Jan 15, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 532Unions8–0Unanimous band

  9. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis138 S. Ct. 1612May 21, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1612Unions5–45–4 band

  10. Granite Rock Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al.561 U.S. 287Jun 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 287Unions7–27–2 band

  11. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Antonio Jackson561 U.S. 63Jun 21, 2010 · 561 U.S. 63Unions5–45–4 band

  12. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc.534 U.S. 279Jan 15, 2002 · 534 U.S. 279Unions6–36–3 band
  13. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Saint Clair Adams532 U.S. 105Mar 21, 2001 · 532 U.S. 105Unions5–45–4 band

  14. Ceasar Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corporation et al.525 U.S. 70Nov 16, 1998 · 525 U.S. 70Unions9–0Unanimous band
  15. Air Line Pilots Association v. Robert A. Miller, et al.523 U.S. 866May 26, 1998 · 523 U.S. 866Unions7–27–2 band
  16. Litton Financial Printing Division, a Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, et al.501 U.S. 190Jun 13, 1991 · 501 U.S. 190Unions5–45–4 band
  17. United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Misco, Inc.484 U.S. 29Dec 1, 1987 · 484 U.S. 29Unions8–0Unanimous band
  18. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America et al.475 U.S. 643Apr 7, 1986 · 475 U.S. 643Unions9–0Unanimous band
  19. Schneider Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins et al.466 U.S. 364Apr 18, 1984 · 466 U.S. 364Unions9–0Unanimous band
  20. Clayton v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al.451 U.S. 679May 26, 1981 · 451 U.S. 679Unions5–45–4 band
  21. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell et al.451 U.S. 56Apr 20, 1981 · 451 U.S. 56Unions9–0Unanimous band
  22. Barrentine et al. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., et al.450 U.S. 728Apr 6, 1981 · 450 U.S. 728Unions7–27–2 band
  23. Nolde Brothers, Inc. v. Local No. 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO430 U.S. 243Mar 7, 1977 · 430 U.S. 243Unions7–27–2 band
  24. Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.428 U.S. 397Jul 6, 1976 · 428 U.S. 397Unions5–45–4 band
  25. Hines et al. v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., et al.424 U.S. 554Mar 3, 1976 · 424 U.S. 554Unions6–27–2 band
  26. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Flair Builders, Inc.406 U.S. 487May 30, 1972 · 406 U.S. 487Unions7–27–2 band
  27. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770398 U.S. 235Jun 1, 1970 · 398 U.S. 235Unions5–27–2 band
  28. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox379 U.S. 650Jan 25, 1965 · 379 U.S. 650Unions8–18–1 band
  29. Independent Petroleum Workers of America, Inc. v. American Oil Co.379 U.S. 130Nov 23, 1964 · 379 U.S. 130Unions4–45–4 band
  30. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., v. Livingston, President of District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO376 U.S. 543Mar 30, 1964 · 376 U.S. 543Unions8–0Unanimous band

  31. Local Union No. 721, United Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, v. Needham Packing Co., Doing Business As Sioux City Dressed Beef376 U.S. 247Mar 9, 1964 · 376 U.S. 247Unions9–0Unanimous band
  32. Carey, President of the International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.375 U.S. 261Jan 6, 1964 · 375 U.S. 261Unions6–27–2 band
  33. Drake Bakeries Incorporated v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International, AFL-CIO, et al.370 U.S. 254Jun 18, 1962 · 370 U.S. 254Unions7–18–1 band
  34. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.363 U.S. 593Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 593Unions7–18–1 band
  35. United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.363 U.S. 574Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 574Unions7–18–1 band
  36. United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co.363 U.S. 564Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 564Unions8–0Unanimous band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.