Just when employers thought the tide was turning in their favor following favorable decisions such as Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (affirming the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Inc. v. Williams (limiting the definition of "disability" under the ADA), the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered some bad news for employers.

In a recent 6-3 ruling, the highest court in the country broadened the powers of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) while limiting the ability of employers to keep workplace disputes out of court. In EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that, despite its ruling in Circuit City, the EEOC was permitted to sue for monetary damages in federal court on behalf of a cook who was terminated following a seizure at work--even though the employee's employment agreement with Waffle House contained a mandatory arbitration provision.

Specifically, the Court held that "an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the EEOC from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action."

According to Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the majority opinion, the EEOC is "the master of its own case" and free to decide for itself whether it is in the best interests of the public to pursue a suit against the employer in federal court.

Recognizing that the employee could not pursue a claim against Waffle House in court in light of the Circuit City decision, Justice Clarence Thomas (who, ironically, was former head of the EEOC) dissented as follows: "I cannot agree that the EEOC may do on behalf of an employee that which an employee has agreed not to do for himself."