In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., 2001, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not prevent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief on behalf of a worker. The dispute began when Eric Scott Baker applied for a job at Waffle House and signed an application containing a mandatory arbitration clause. After suffering a seizure at work, he was fired and filed charges with EEOC alleging discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite Baker's individual claim being subject to compulsory arbitration due to his employment contract, the court held in favor of EEOC stating it has independent authority to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws irrespective of private agreements made by employees.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the EEOC should not be able to pursue victim-specific judicial relief on behalf of an employee who had signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. The dissenters believed that allowing such action would undermine federal policy favoring arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. They contended that when an employee agrees to arbitrate all employment-related disputes, it includes those arising from statutory rights like those under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, they opined that EEOC's right to seek relief should be limited only to injunctive and non-victim specific relief in order not to infringe upon private agreements and respect their binding nature.