Circuit City appealed to the U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court, which reversed the Ninth Circuit and ruled that arbitration clauses contained in employment contracts are covered by the FAA's command that an arbitration clause be considered valid and enforceable when it appears in a "contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce." The U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court also ruled the "seaman" and "railroad" employees exemption applies only to those employment contracts involving seamen, railroad employees, or other transportation workers $($because other transportation workers are similar to the enumerated categories of seamen and railroad employees$).$ The Court applied the ejusdem generis maxim to reach this conclusion. Ejusdem generis is Latin for $"$of the same kind." When a law lists classes of persons or things, this concept is used to clarify such a list. Under the Court's interpretation, the contracts of other employees$--$i$.$e$.,$ those who were not seamen, railroad employees, or transportation workers$--$do not fall within the exemption from the FAA.

Adams' complaint against Circuit City will be dismissed from federal district court and remanded to arbitration governed by the FAA.

If Adams' complaint is not subject to arbitration under the FAA, the federal district court can require Adams and Circuit City to engage in nonbinding arbitration in an effort to encourage settlement.

If Adams is dissatisfied with the amount of the arbitration award obtained in the arbitration conducted under the FAA, Adams can obtain a reversal of that award in Federal District Court.

The FAA prohibits Adams from pursuing a class action arbitration action against Circuit City.

If the arbitration clause in Adams' employment contract required the arbitration to be conducted before the London Court of International Arbitration and the cost of doing so exceeds the likely award he may get from the arbitration, the federal district court will likely rule the arbitration clause is unenforceable.