First, there is an enormous difference between the scope of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the NLRA. The first covers all employers who employ 15 or more people, while the latter focuses on unionized work forces. Title VII, as opposed to the NLRA, relies heavily on private parties litigating against other private parties and builds in a period of conciliation. In the past, proponents of arbitration in discrimination cases argued that it reduced overburdened courts' caseloads. Critics said arbitration was not suited to class action claims, lacked procedural safeguards, was too private a process for a matter of public concern, and had no power to reform contracts. Following the Gardner-Denver decision in 1974 and sweeping reforms at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1977 to speed up claims processing, there was little debate about the usefulness of arbitration. Many reasons still exist, however, for developing arbitration as an alternative mechanism. Because of the substantial volume of claims now received by the EEOC and budget cutbacks, the potential for a case backlog exists. Also the rapid charge processing system has been severely criticized. Because recent decisions have reinforced the Gardner-Denver ruling that there is an absolute right to a trial de novo in Federal court under Title VII, despite prior arbitration, arbitration ought be incorporated explicitly within the scheme under Title VII. Two notes are supplied.