1. Is the EEOC’s role in combating age discrimination dependent on filing an age discrimination charge?
2. Did Congress intend to preserve an individual’s right to a judicial forum in an ADEA case from waiver?
3. Did the Court hold that the Alexander v. Gardner-Denver decision precluded arbitration of employment discrimination claims?

[Petitioner Robert Gilmer was required by his employer to register as a securities representative with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). His registration application contained an agreement to arbitrate any controversy arising out of a registered representative's employment or termination of employment. The employer terminated Gilmer at age 62. Thereafter, he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and brought suit in the district court, alleging that he had been discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The employer moved to compel arbitration. The court denied the motion based on Alexander v. Gardner Denver Co. The court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.]
WHITE, J.…
We … are unpersuaded by the argument that arbitration will undermine the role of the EEOC in enforcing the ADEA. An individual ADEA claimant subject to an arbitration agreement will still be free to file a charge with the EEOC, even though the claimant is not able to institute a private judicial action. Indeed, Gilmer filed a charge with the EEOC in this case. In any event, the EEOC's role in combating age discrimination is not dependent on the filing of a charge; the agency may receive information concerning alleged violations of the ADEA "from any source," and it has independent authority to investigate age discrimination. See 29 CFR §§ 1626.4, 1626.13 (1990). Moreover, nothing in the ADEA indicates that Congress intended that the EEOC be involved in all employment disputes.…
Gilmer also argues that compulsory arbitration is improper because it deprives claimants of the judicial forum provided for by the ADEA. Congress, however, did not explicitly preclude arbitration or other nonjudicial resolution of claims, even in its recent amendments to the ADEA. "[I]f Congress intended the substantive protection afforded [by the ADEA] to include protection against waiver of the right to a judicial forum, that intention will be deducible from text or legislative history." Mitsubishi, 473 U.S., at 628, 105 S.Ct. at 3354….