established under substantive State and Federal law. As a result, these decisions have enabled business entities to avoid or nullify legal duties created by congressional enactment, resulting in millions of people in the United States being unable to vindicate their rights in State and Federal courts. (18) States have a compelling interest in enacting rights and remedies to protect the welfare of their citizens, and the Federal Arbitration Act should not be, and should not have been, interpreted to preempt State legislation that enacted rights and remedies to protect the welfare of their citizens. (19) The Supreme Court misinterpreted title VII of the Civil Rights Act in establishing the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth. This affirmative defense often leaves victims of sexual harassment with no remedy or recourse after incidence of sexual or other harassment. Violations of the law, and injuries to a victim and their rights, are not cured by the existence of an anti-harassment policy or the lack of future harm, and in a hostile work environment taking preventative measures is not a requirement that falls on the victim. (20) Bringing a lawsuit to vindicate civil rights is financially risky, and law firms, whether large or small, are unlikely to take such cases on. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 in order to make lawsuits to vindicate civil rights more accessible to potential plaintiffs. The Supreme Court correctly recognized in City of Riverside v. Rivera that the effectuation of congressional intent requires viable civil rights lawsuits, which are dependent on the availability of private enforcement mechanisms and the corresponding availability of attorney’s fees. (21) However, the Supreme Court incorrectly held that the catalyst theory is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees in Buckhannon v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources. In doing so, the Court deprived