Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Waffle House: An Employee’s Arbitration Agreement Did Not Bar the EEOC’s Enforcement Remedies

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 27, 2026

EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. considered whether an applicant’s agreement to arbitrate employment disputes restricted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the agency filed its own ADA enforcement action.

The EEOC was not a party to the arbitration agreement

The employee’s contract governed his own promises, but the Commission had neither signed it nor assumed his contractual obligation to arbitrate.

The agency controls its enforcement action

Once the EEOC chooses to sue, federal law authorizes it to pursue injunctive relief and victim-specific remedies in service of the public enforcement interest.

Victim-specific relief remained available

The agreement did not categorically bar the Commission from seeking backpay, reinstatement, or damages for the affected worker, although ordinary limits such as avoiding double recovery still apply.

The employee’s own proceeding remains relevant

A settlement, judgment, failure to mitigate, or other individual conduct can affect the relief ultimately awarded even though the arbitration agreement does not eliminate the EEOC’s authority.

Key takeaways

• Identify who signed the arbitration agreement.
• Separate the employee’s private claim from the EEOC’s enforcement authority.
• Track any settlement or award that could affect available relief.
• Preserve mitigation evidence and avoid double recovery.