This case is on remand to us from the Michigan Supreme Court, 453 Mich 943 (1996), for reconsideration in light of Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc, 452 Mich 405; 550 NW2d 243 (1996). We reverse in part and affirm in part.

As we stated in our earlier opinion:

Plaintiff worked as a part-time floor detective for defendant Meijer, Incorporated. When she was hired by Meijer, plaintiff signed an employment form agreeing to abide [by] *160defendant’s policies and procedures. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of an associate handbook which included defendant’s termination appeal procedure. This document unambiguously provided that terminated employees were required to exhaust the alternate dispute resolution (adr) procedure. A separate document which plaintiff received indicated that exhaustion of the adr procedure is a condition precedent to litigation, regardless of whether the arbitrator’s final decision is upheld by a trial court.

When defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment, she [plaintiff] invoked the adr procedure. She indicated that she believed she had been discharged without just cause, that she was the victim of gender discrimination, and that she had been retaliated against for complaining about not being given a full-time job. Following an investigation, plaintiff’s discharge was upheld at step one of the adr procedure. Plaintiff chose not to pursue the next step in the procedure, binding arbitration, and instead filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful discharge, gender discrimination, and retaliation. Defendant moved for summary or partial disposition, or for an order enforcing the adr award or procedure. At the hearing on defendant’s motion, plaintiff withdrew her retaliation claim. The court then denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition of the wrongful discharge and gender discrimination claims. [Rushton v Meijer, Inc, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 1, 1995 (Docket No. 164272).]

In our original opinion, we reversed the trial court’s denial of a defense motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s wrongful discharge and gender discrimination claims because plaintiff had failed to exhaust the remedies available to her pursuant to the ADR procedure that defendant had established to resolve such claims. In reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, we relied on Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc, 207 Mich App 308; 523 NW2d 904 (1994), as controlling precedent *161for the proposition that private agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims are enforceable.

i

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed this Court’s decision in Heurtebise, because the employee handbook contained language demonstrating that the employer did not intend to be bound by its provisions. 452 Mich 414. As the Supreme Court noted, the handbook in Heurtebise contained clauses stating: (1) the policies in the handbook do not create any employment or personal contract, express or implied; (2) the employer had the right to terminate employees’ employment at any time, without notice, for any reason; and (3) the employer reserved the right to make modifications to any or all of the policies in the handbook. Thus, the instrument in Heurtebise expressly disclaiming contract status, yielding the employee no benefit above the minimal required status even to be an employee — namely, at-will status— and having provisions that could be changed unilaterally by the employer was, as might be expected, determined not to be a contract by the Supreme Court.

It is in light of this holding that we are directed to reexamine the Meijer employee handbook. The dissimilarities are marked. Unlike the Heurtebise handbook, the Meijer handbook does not contain language stating that Meijer does not intend to be bound by its provisions. Further, it does not indicate that Meijer considers the policies not to create a contract and, finally, rather than an at-will termination policy, this instrument has consideration running to the employee in the form of an express promise of termination *162from employment only for just cause. Were this the extent of the provisions of the Meijer handbook, we could easily discern its determinative distinctions from the Heurtebise booklet and find it to be a contract binding on both parties. There is, however, reservation language in the Meijer handbook stating that the existing policies may be “modified or deleted” by the employer. This reservation clause, plaintiff argues, would allow all or part of the contractual provisions to be deleted and means that the instrument here at issue, just as the one in Heurtebise, is no contract at all.

This argument has some allure, but on serious scrutiny, the problem plaintiff points to is illusory in the factual circumstances found here. It must be recalled that this instrument is an agreement to control an ongoing course of conduct between the employer and its employees. By its clear terms, they are both bound by it unless and until the employer chooses to change it. Even then, the employer cannot retroactively escape from its requirements. Any change can only take effect prospectively. See In re Certified Question, 432 Mich 438, 441; 443 NW2d 112 (1989). Accordingly, because the alleged improper acts by the employer at issue here came before any change was made in the agreement by the employer (in fact, as far as we know, even now no changes have been instituted by the employer), both parties are bound. In particular, the parties are bound to utilize the exclusive ADR procedure for handling their contract dispute. While the reservation language in the handbook will allow Meijer, for example, to change its policy of being a just-cause employer to become an at-will employer, the change would be effective only *163from the time of the implementation of the change (and after reasonable employee notification). Until such a change is made (which might cause the new arrangement to run afoul of the Heurtebise holding), Meijer is bound by the handbook in its dealing with its employees. Indeed, any other conclusion would mean that an employer could never change its employment agreements with its employees. Once a just-cause employer would mean always a just-cause employer. No employer would be likely to choose voluntarily to be so bound, and, thus, plaintiffs position, if adopted, would have the unfortunate and surely undesirable consequence of discouraging the practice of granting employees just-cause termination protection. Moreover, if an employer should cavalierly eliminate provisions that restrict its options in dealing with its employees, arbitrability could be jeopardized under Heurtebise, and valued employees, the retention of whom no doubt prompted the adoption of the just-cause policy in the first place, might choose to leave the employer. Rood v General Dynamics Corp, 444 Mich 107, 137-141; 507 NW2d 591 (1993). This economic regulation of the employment marketplace will undoubtedly cause an employer to exercise caution before making any change in the employment relationship, just as conditions of the employment market no doubt were factors considered in the granting of just-cause termination status in this case.

Therefore, because the Meijer and Heurtebise handbooks are distinguishable, this plaintiff was bound by the handbook with regard to any contractual claim. The fact that Meijer could later change the agreement does not vitiate the fact that, as things currently stand, these parties are contractually bound. Accord*164ingly, Meijer can, consistent with prior case law, require employees to arbitrate contract disputes regarding adverse employment decisions. See, e.g., Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579, 624; 292 NW2d 880 (1989). Because plaintiff failed to pursue her breach of contract claim utilizing the required ADR procedure, she is barred from pursuing such a claim in the circuit court. Renny v Port Huron Hosp, 427 Mich 415, 429-430; 398 NW2d 327 (1986); Zeniuk v RKA, Inc, 189 Mich App 33, 35, 37-38; 472 NW2d 23 (1991). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition of this claim.

H

With regard to plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, we conclude, in light of Heurtebise, that summary disposition was properly denied by the trial court. To this end, we agree with and adopt as our own the reasoning of Justice Cavanagh in parts m through VI of his opinion in Heurtebise, which addressed, albeit in dicta, the issue “whether private employers can require employees, as a condition of employment, to waive prospectively their right to pursue civil rights claims in a judicial forum.”1 452 Mich 414.

As noted by Justice Cavanagh in Heurtebise, “[u]nlike federal law, Michigan has an unwavering history of faithfully defending an aggrieved individual’s *165right to a judicial forum to remedy unlawful discrimination.” 452 Mich 414. This unwavering history is currently reflected in the judicial remedies clause of Const 1963, art 5, § 29, as well as its legislative counterpart, MCL 37.2803; MSA 3.548(803). Article 5, § 29 of our state constitution establishes a civil rights commission with certain powers and responsibilities, and incorporates a judicial remedies clause: “Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to diminish the right of any party to direct and immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of this state.” Similarly, our Legislature in § 803 of the Civil Rights Act has reinforced and broadened the constitutional right of Michigan’s citizens to immediate and direct judicial review of a civil rights claim: “This [civil rights] act shall not be construed to diminish the right of a person to direct or immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of this state.” Justice Cavanagh aptly concluded that § 803 “expressly prohibits an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.” 452 Mich 420.

Michigan’s declared public policy entitling a state civil rights plaintiff to direct and immediate review of such claims in the circuit court cannot be abrogated by contract:

A contract which is contrary to public policy is illegal and void. Federoff v Ewing, 386 Mich 474, 481; 192 NW2d 242 (1971). Public policy has been described as “the community common sense and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the State to matters of public morals, public health, public safety, public welfare, and the like.” Skutt v Grand Rapids, 275 Mich 258, 264; 266 NW 344 (1936). It is expressed in the constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, or customs and conventions of the people, and it concerns the primary principles of equity and justice. Id. *166[Badon v General Motors Corp, 188 Mich App 430, 439; 470 NW2d 436 (1991).]

Contrary to defendant Meijer’s argument, we do not find the parties’ employment contract to be governed by the federal arbitration act (faa), 9 USC 1 et seq.2 In Bernhardt v Polygraphic Co of America, Inc, 350 US 198, 200-201; 76 S Ct 273; 100 L Ed 199 (1956), Bernhardt, a New York resident, was hired by Polygraphic, a New York corporation, to be the superintendent of its lithographic plant in Vermont. Under the terms of the parties’ employment contract (which contained an arbitration clause), Bernhardt “was to perform” the contract after he “later became a resident of Vermont.” The Court held that the contract did not evidence “ ‘a transaction involving commerce,’ ” id., at 200, and that the faa did not apply because there was no showing that Bernhardt, in performing the contract, “was working ‘in’ commerce, was producing goods for commerce, or was engaging in activity that affected commerce.” Id. at 201. See also Allied-Bruce *167Terminix Cos, Inc v Dobson, 513 US 265; 115 S Ct 834; 130 L Ed 2d 753 (1995).

The facts of the present case are considerably less compelling than those in Bernhardt. Plaintiff Rushton was employed by Meijer as a floor detective. Her contractual duties did not facilitate, affect, or arise out of interstate or foreign commerce. Thus, even the broadest construction of the statutory phrase “involving commerce” cannot encompass plaintiffs employment contract with Meijer.3 Moreover, it is not enough that one party’s business in general involves interstate activity. Becker v Amoco Pipeline Co, 1989 US Dist LEXIS 11309 (ND Ill, 1989). Therefore, the fact that Meijer’s general business activities may involve interstate commerce does not change the analysis because the proper focus under the FAA is on the particular contract at issue. Accordingly, we conclude that the FAA is inapplicable to this matter.

Only two of the dissent’s arguments warrant a response. First, the dissent chides us for neglecting this state’s statutory arbitration act,4 which the dis*168sent argues overrides § 803 of the Civil Rights Act. A basic rule of statutory construction is that a statute specific in language and enacted contemporaneously with or after a general statute covering the same subject matter constitutes an exception to the general statute if there appears to be conflict between them. State Hwy Comm’r v Detroit City Controller, 331 Mich 337, 363-364; 49 NW2d 318 (1951). Here, § 803 of the Civil Rights Act — which was enacted in 1976 and took effect in 1977 — must be viewed as an exception to the generally applicable arbitration statute — which was enacted in 1963. Our courts have never held out the proposition suggested by the dissent that the Legislature, when enacting legislation that indirectly affects extant legislation, must expressly repeal or amend the affected statute. Thus, the fact that the arbitration statute does not expressly exempt civil rights claims in the context of employment disputes is of no moment.

Second, the dissent asserts that our decision will force “sophisticated employers,” like defendant Meijer, either to abandon its policy of just-cause employment or to simply leave the state for a business-friendly environment. The dissent “cannot help but sense” that we, along with three members of the Supreme Court, have attempted to “str[ike] a blow for the working people of this state.” As members of the judiciary, however, our mandate is to enforce the laws as written by the Legislature. We acknowledge our surprise at our dissenting colleague’s willingness, in this case, to abandon his long-held support for the unambiguous written word of the Legislature. Indeed, it was our dissenting colleague who stated that, “[c]learly, it is for the Legislature, and not the courts, *169to change substantive laws affecting public policy,” McDougall v Eliuk, 218 Mich App 501, 518-519; 554 NW2d 56 (1996) (Taylor, RJ., dissenting), and that “judicial misgivings regarding the wisdom of a legislative . . . policy do not provide, absent a violation of the constitution, a legal foundation for overriding legislative intent,” but rather that “[t]he wisdom of this policy is a political question to be resolved in the political forum,” People v Poole, 218 Mich App 702, 714; 555 NW2d 485 (1996). Section 803 plainly and forcefully provides that the Civil Rights Act “shall not be construed to diminish the right of a person to direct or immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of this state” (emphasis added). The dissent’s ambitious attempt to create an ambiguity where none exists is not persuasive.

After examining federal and Michigan civil rights jurisprudence, Justice Cavanagh stated, and we agree:

In conclusion, with respect to equal opportunity in the pursuit of civil liberties, such as employment, I believe that the right to be free from unlawful discrimination is of highest priority and too important to jeopardize. I further believe that the constitutionally guaranteed direct access to a judicial forum is so interwoven with the enforcement of civil rights in Michigan that we cannot separate them without potentially harming substantive civil rights. Accordingly, I would hold that the Michigan Constitution and our longstanding public policy preclude the enforcement of prospective arbitration agreements in employment contracts.

Finally, I would assert that I am not backing away from the public policy favoring alternative means of dispute resolution. For aggrieved individuals seeking to pursue remedies for claims that have already accrued, arbitration may present a quicker and cheaper means of receiving relief, and I fully support the parties’ voluntary intent in those cases. I would limit this opinion to the arbitration agree*170ments in employment contracts entered into before any claim for unlawful discrimination has accrued. [Heurtebise, 452 Mich 437-438.]

Accordingly, we hold that Meijer cannot require its employees, as a condition of employment, to waive prospectively their right to pursue direct and immediate review of civil rights claims in a judicial forum. The provision of the parties’ private employment contract requiring plaintiff, a nonunion employee, to exhaust the termination appeal procedure, including binding arbitration, before filing a lawsuit in the circuit court, is void as it relates to her gender discrimination claim under Michigan law.5 The trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim is affirmed.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Remanded for further proceedings regarding plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim. We retain no further jurisdiction.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I wholeheartedly concur with part I of the majority opinion; however, I dissent from part n. Thus, I would reverse the lower court’s order denying summary disposition for defendant in its entirety.

The essence of the majority position is that the parties’ contract is valid except for the agreement to *171arbitrate a civil rights claim. Thus, the agreement to arbitrate, as it pertains to civil rights, has been found to violate public policy, and the court has rewritten the parties’ agreement by striking that provision. Accordingly, the current state of the law is that the freedom to contract prospectively with regard to arbitration of civil rights claims is not available to our citizens on the asserted ground that such freedom offends public policy. I respectfully disagree.

In our jurisprudence, contractual freedom is the axiomatic norm, and to deviate from that norm requires justification.1 The majority asserts that there is such justification and that it is found in a constitutional provision, a statute, and a nonmajority opinion of the Supreme Court. Yet, as I explain below, the authority cited by the majority does not compel, or even allow, the conclusions that it has drawn from them. As a result, the majority has, without authority, but undoubtedly with good intentions, rewritten the parties’ contract.

In our original opinion in this case, we held that defendant was entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim because she failed to exhaust the remedies available to her pursuant to defendant’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) *172procedure.2 We held that plaintiff’s sole remedy for her gender discrimination claim was the ADR procedure. Rushton v Meijer, Inc, unpublished memorandum opinion, issued March 1, 1995 (Docket No. 164272). The Supreme Court, 453 Mich 943 (1996), remanded this case to us for reconsideration in light of Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc, 452 Mich 405; 550 NW2d 243 (1996). First, there is nothing in the majority holding of Heurtebise that suggests our prior reversal of the trial court’s holding was not the correct resolution of this issue. Indeed, a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court specifically declined to reach this issue. Id. at 438-439. Nevertheless, a minority opinion signed by two current and one former members of the Supreme Court stated in dicta that it is contrary to Michigan public policy to require an employee to waive resolution of a civil rights claim in a judicial forum as a condition of employment. That dicta has now been adopted, embellished, and made the law of this state as a result of part n of the majority opinion herein.

The conclusion of the minority opinion in Heurtebise is premised primarily upon Const 1963, art 5, § 29, which provides: “Nothing contained in this section [establishing the civil rights commission] shall be construed to diminish the right of any party to direct and immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of this state,” and its statutory counterpart, MCL 37.2803; MSA 3.548(803), which provides: “This [civil rights] act shall not be construed to diminish *173the right of a person to direct or immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of this state.” As explained below, the conclusion of the minority opinion in Heurtebise and the majority here is not established by the cited constitutional provision or the cited statute.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has definitively construed these provisions in a controlling opinion in a way that is not harmonious with the minority dicta opinion in Heurtebise or the majority opinion herein. In Nummer v Dep’t of Treasury, 448 Mich 534, 550; 533 NW2d 250 (1995), the Supreme Court said that the above-cited constitutional provision and statute mean that “the Civil Rights Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over discrimination claims, but instead has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts.”3 Thus, the cited constitutional language simply means that a person is not required to exhaust whatever remedies he may have with the Civil Rights Commission before filing a circuit court lawsuit.4 In no event can it be said, as the minority opinion in Heurtebise claims and the majority herein adopts, that this constitutional provision provides a nonwaivable right to a judicial forum or precludes the enforcement of prospective arbitration agreements in *174employment contracts. 452 Mich 436, 438. The cited constitutional provision simply does not address the propriety of prospective agreements to arbitrate civil rights disputes in employment contracts.

The cited statutory language is similarly straightforward. Section 803 states that the Michigan Civil Rights Act itself is not to be construed to diminish the right of a person to direct or immediate legal or equitable remedies in Michigan courts. That is, the Legislature wished to make it clear that the remedies in the Civil Rights Act are cumulative to preexisting common-law and statutory rights. This was necessary because, before passage of the Civil Rights Act, certain civil rights were already guaranteed by the common-law and by statute, and the Legislature wanted to make clear that its broad entry into the field had not abrogated the previously existing common-law and statutory rights. See Marsh v Dep’t of Civil Service, 142 Mich App 557, 563, n 2, 567, n 6; 370 NW2d 613 (1985). See also Heurtebise, supra at 423. Thus, as with the constitutional provision, § 803 simply does not address the issue of the propriety of prospective agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims. Accord Prudential Ins Co v Shammas, 865 F Supp 429, 433 (WD Mich, 1993) (the court rejected the argument that MCL 37.2803; MSA 3.548[803] precluded arbitration under the federal arbitration act of a Michigan civil rights claim).

A statute that does address the issue is Michigan’s statutory arbitration act.5 This act allows predispute *175contracts to arbitrate6 and only excepts collective bargaining and certain real estate disputes from its purview. MCL 600.5001(3); MSA 27A.5001(3); MCL 600.5005; MSA 27A.5005. Because the act allows predispute agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims, it establishes Michigan’s public policy concerning this issue. Obviously, if the Legislature wanted to preclude predispute agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims, it would have excluded such claims by name, just as it excluded collective bargaining agreements and certain real estate claims. The express exclusion of some claims implies inclusion of those not mentioned. People v Jahner, 433 Mich 490, 500, n 3; 446 NW2d 151 (1989). Therefore, for this reason also, there is no jus*176tification for this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the contracting parties in declaring the parties’ predispute agreement to arbitrate invalid.

Moreover, reading § 803 to produce the result that the majority reaches here requires one to ignore how explicitly our Legislature speaks when it wants to bar prospective contractual waivers of important rights. For example, in the Employment Security Act, the Legislature provided that no agreement by an individual to waive his right to benefits or any other rights under the act is valid. MCL 421.31; MSA 17.533. Similarly, when enacting the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, the Legislature provided that no agreement by an employee to waive his rights to compensation under the worker’s compensation act before an injury shall be valid. MCL 418.815; MSA 17.237(815). In contrast, there is no waiver-bar language in either the constitution or § 803 vis-á-vis predispute agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims. This lack of language barring a waiver is inappropriately given no weight by the majority.

In addition, the majority misunderstands, and thus mischaracterizes, the import of the proper construction of the constitution and § 803. Defendant is not asserting that, because of the existence of the Civil Rights Commission section of the constitution or of the Civil Rights Act, plaintiff is precluded from going to the circuit court. Rather, defendant argues that these provisions do not mean one must go to the circuit court, and in no way preclude contracting parties from agreeing to a different forum than a court, to adjudicate their civil rights disputes. I agree with defendant’s argument because this construction leaves the constitution and § 803 with the meaning *177their language clearly implies and also because it does not obliterate freedom of contract with regard to the matter here under consideration.7

Finally, the whole notion of prospective waivers of important rights is not, as the majority seems to believe, inherently repugnant to our constitutional order. Indeed, it is well established that rights of a higher standing than that of forum selection, i.e., constitutional rights themselves, may be prospectively waived.8 See, e.g., Snepp v United States, 444 US 507; 100 S Ct 763; 62 L Ed 2d 704 (1980) (First Amendment right to speak or right about information gained in course of employment with government may be waived by contract); Whispering Pines AFC, Home, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 212 Mich App 545, 550; 538 NW2d 452 (1995) (due process right to an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute may be waived by signing *178a contract with the government).9 Given that these highly valued constitutional rights may be prospectively waived without offending public policy, how can it be seriously suggested that, without a statute or provision of the constitution prohibiting it, and, in fact, our state arbitration act allowing it, the right to have a circuit court to resolve a civil rights dispute may not be prospectively waived in favor of having such a claim adjudicated in an arbitral forum?

The majority also adopts Justice Cavanagh’s statement that § 803 expressly prohibits an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement. I agree with this proposition of law, but note that it has no relevance to the question whether parties may enter into predispute agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims.10 This *179proposition of law is irrelevant to the question before us because a contractual remedy is not an administrative remedy. It is important to remember what an administrative remedy is and what it is not. An administrative remedy is a remedy that is available from an administrative agency, such as the Civil Rights Commission. It is not, as the majority seems to suggest, any remedy other than a court remedy. To put a finer point on it, an administrative remedy is not one from an arbitration forum established through a privately established method of alternative dispute resolution. Thus, because we are dealing with an arbitration available through a valid contract, the doctrine that holds that a civil rights claimant need not exhaust administrative remedies is simply inapplicable. It is disingenuous for the majority to ignore the difference between an administrative remedy and a private contractual remedy, and there is no principled basis for treating a private contractual remedy as if it *180were identical to a remedy available from an administrative agency.

At this point, then, at least to my satisfaction, the flaws in the majority’s position have been demonstrated. This draws me to the conclusion that the real objection the majority has can be found at the end of the minority opinion in Heurtebise. Id. at 438. There, Justice Cavanagh states that he believes that the right to be free of unlawful discrimination is just “too important” to be left to any dispute resolution process, prospectively agreed upon, other than that available in a court. Id. at 438 (emphasis supplied). While a jurist can, of course, hold this view as a personal matter, I do not know how this gets converted into a rule of law given that any legal basis for this view has been demonstrated to be lacking. In a situation like the case at bar, it is for the Legislature (which as we have seen has spoken concerning this and allowed that which Justice Cavanagh and the majority opinion herein disallows), or for the people directly, through referendum or constitutional amendment, to establish as the public policy. Because the Legislature has acted to establish this public policy in this area, it is inappropriate for the majority to disregard that action.

Further, I respectfully point out that, in my view, Justice Cavanagh’s position also is ill-advised because it can only be reached if one, notwithstanding protests to the contrary, id. at 438, holds the notion that arbitration is a second-rate type of fact-finding and remedy-producing vehicle that is to be discouraged in favor of traditional litigation. That, however, is inconsistent with how the courts view arbitration. Both the Michigan and the federal courts have enunciated *181strong public-policy positions that favor the utilization of arbitration to resolve disputes. Such statements are premised, in part, upon Congress’ enactment of the federal arbitration act, 9 USC 1 to 15, and Michigan’s enactment of the previously discussed statutory arbitration act, MCL 600.5001 et seq.; MSA 27A.5001, and clearly show that arbitration is favored as a means of resolving disputes.

The United States Supreme Court in Gilmer v Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp, 500 US 20, 34, n 5; 111 S Ct 1647; 114 L Ed 2d 26 (1991), stated:

The Court in Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co [415 US 36; 94 S Ct 1011; 39 L Ed 2d 147 (1974)] also expressed the view that arbitration was inferior to the judicial process for resolving statutory claims. 415 US, at 57-58. That “mistrust of the arbitral process,” however, has been undermined by our recent arbitration decisions. [Shearson American Express, Inc v McMahon, 482 US 220, 231-232; 107 S Ct 2332; 96 L Ed 2d 185 (1987)]. “[W]e are well past the time when judicial suspicion of the desirability of arbitration and of the competence of arbitral tribunals inhibited the development of arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc, 473 US 614, 626-627 [87 L Ed 2d 444; 105 S Ct 3346] (1985).

Our Michigan courts have said no less. In Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving Industries, Inc, 177 Mich App 351, 356; 441 NW2d 99 (1989), rev’d in part on other grounds on rehearing 179 Mich App 600 (1989), Judge (now Justice) Marilyn Kelly said: “Our courts have long been supportive of arbitration agreements and have discouraged efforts to circumvent their objectives.” Also, in Whispering Pines, supra at 550, the Court stated: “[T]he law favors contractual terms providing for alternate dispute resolution mechanisms.” *182Most recently, in Brucker v McKinlay Transport, Inc, 454 Mich 8, 17; 557 NW2d 536 (1997), the Michigan Supreme Court stated: “[P]arties who can locate an alternative method of dispute resolution are encouraged to bypass the courts and use other appropriate means.” Indeed, Justice Cavanagh himself acknowledges this virtually uniform view by conceding that there is a public policy favoring alternative dispute resolution, while puzzlingly asserting that the import of this view does not adversely affect his position. Heurtebise, supra at 438.

One cannot help sensing that the members of the Supreme Court who joined in the Heurtebise minority opinion, as well as the majority here, feel that they have struck a blow for the working people of this state. After all, no arbitration of civil rights claims, and only full dress litigation with all of its protections, sounds at first blush to be protective of civil rights principles. Yet, the cost may well be that just-cause employers, such as Meijer, having had much of the value of their bargain (just-cause employment given in return for a promise to eliminate lengthy, costly civil rights litigation in court) stripped from them by this decision, will simply terminate the whole just-cause regime, as they have reserved the right to do, and return to at-will employment. Moreover, might it not be that, in practice, even just-cause disputes (that would still be subject to arbitration under part I of the majority opinion) will opportunistically be coupled with or pleaded as a civil rights claim,11 in order to avoid arbitration? Whether this maneuvering *183will actually take place is less important than that it will be anticipated by sophisticated employers, thus providing an additional disincentive for an employer to enter into any agreement offering just-cause employment in return for an agreement to utilize arbitration to resolve employment-related disputes and thereby leaving employees in the less desirable status of at-will employment.

In short, can it be said with certainty that the majority’s opinion has really advanced the cause of this state’s employees? It can be doubted. The reason is that every worker cares about freedom from arbitrary termination while fewer, fortunately, have any need to worry about, or avail themselves of, civil rights remedies. While this calculus may not be every person’s, it is for that reason it would be wise, especially given the legislative allowance of predispute agreements to arbitrate civil rights claims and no constitutional bar against it, not to impose our preferences on the parties and to allow them instead, as free men and women, to enter or not to enter into employment with these conditions. Were we to have ruled that just-cause employers may prospectively agree with their employees to arbitrate civil rights claims, one could reasonably assume that more at-will employers would seriously consider, and have incentive to become, just-cause employers. It is fortunate that ours may not be the final word on this question and that our Supreme Court, should it grant leave in this case (which I urge), will see this issue, as the Heurtebise majority’s refusal to join the minority opinion may suggest, more clearly than the majority in this Court does.

*184In my opinion, defendant was entitled to summary disposition of plaintiffs civil rights claim because the contract she had with Meijer required utilization of arbitration as the “exclusive, final and binding method to resolve all claims arising out of termination from employment.” Plaintiff’s civil rights have not been diminished one iota by the agreement to arbitrate, and the only waiver involved is the forum for deciding if her civil rights had been violated. McKinstry v Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, PC, 428 Mich 167; 405 NW2d 88 (1987). There is no valid reason not to enforce this contractual provision. Thus, I would hold that a just-cause employer that agrees to pay the costs of arbitration and authorizes the arbitration panél to grant any relief a court of law could grant, as Meijer’s policy provides, may require a nonunion employee to arbitrate all employment-related disputes, including civil rights claims, as a condition of employment. Accord Cole v Burns Int’l Security Services, 323 US App DC 133; 105 F3d 1465 (1997) (employer may require arbitration of civil rights claims by employees if employer assumes responsibility for the payment of the arbitrator’s compensation and arbitrators are authorized to grant all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court).12

*185As a final matter, one of the reasons cited by the trial court for refusing to summarily dismiss plaintiffs gender discrimination claim was the fact that the Meijer’s termination appeal procedure requires a person whose employment has been terminated to invoke the procedure within fourteen days of discharge by filing a form. This issue was not ripe for the trial court’s handling because, whether it is permissible or not to allow only fourteen days to file a claim, this plaintiff managed to meet the standard and cannot claim prejudice. The propriety of this short period simply was not relevant to defendant’s motion because defendant was not claiming that plaintiff had failed to invoke the procedure within fourteen days.

Because I would find the prospective agreement to arbitrate civil rights claims enforceable under Michigan law, I find it unnecessary to address defendant’s claim that the federal arbitration act preempts a ruling to the contrary. See, e.g., Great Western Mortgage Corp v Peacock, 110 F3d 222 (CA 3, 1997) (in enacting the federal arbitration act, Congress withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims that the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration), Patterson v Tenet Healthcare, Inc, 113 F3d 832 (CA 8, 1997) (federal arbitration act required the plaintiff to arbitrate a state [Missouri] civil rights claim), O’Neil v Hilton Head Hosp, 115 F3d 272 (CA 4, 1997), and Burns v Olde Discount Corp, 212 Mich App 576, 580; 538 *186NW2d 686 (1995) (state courts are bound under the Supremacy Clause, US Const, art VI, § 2, to enforce the substantive provisions of the federal arbitration act).

For these reasons I would reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in defendant’s favor.