Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
279 F.3d 889 (2002)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In 1995, Saint Clair Adams (plaintiff) worked as a salesman for Circuit City Stores, Inc. (Circuit City) (defendant) in California. Adams’s employment contract with Circuit City contained an arbitration clause. Circuit City drafted the arbitration clause and required employees to agree to it. The clause required employees to arbitrate claims against Circuit City but did not require Circuit City to arbitrate claims against employees. The clause also required employees to split the arbitrator’s fee with Circuit City. Adams sued Circuit City for employment discrimination in California state court. Circuit City filed suit in federal district court, seeking to enjoin Adams’s state suit. Additionally, Circuit City sought to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–2. The district court found that Adams was subject to his contract’s arbitration clause and that he could not pursue his claims in state court. The court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, finding that Adams was required to pursue his employment-discrimination claim in arbitration. On remand, Adams argued that the arbitration clause was an unconscionable adhesion contract and thus invalid.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.