An employee believed that he had been discriminated against by his employer. He filed a lawsuit in federal court, but the employer argued that the court should require him to arbitrate the dispute instead. When the employee was hired, he had signed an arbitration agreement. During his first week of employment, he had been instructed by the human resource manager to “read it and sign it.” The document was the standard agreement that the company required all of its employees to sign, and there was no opportunity to negotiate over the terms. Under the agreement, employees were required to file grievances within five days of the actions being challenged. This limitations period did not apply to any claims that the company night have against employees. The agreement also provided that each party would bear its own attorney’s fees and expenses. Arbitrators were to be selected from a list of four names provided by the American Arbitration Association. In the absence of mutual agreement on who would arbitrate the case, names would be struck from the list until a single name remained. The company would get the first strike and then the parties would take turns. Should the court compel arbitration of this dispute? Why or why not? Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, 609 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2010).