Randolph financed the purchase of her mobile home through Green Tree Financial Corporation. Randolph sued Green Tree alleging that it had violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1691-1691f, by requiring Randolph to arbitrate her statutory causes of action. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was appealable and that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because Randolph’s ability to vindicate her statutory rights would be undone by steep arbitration costs.The Supreme Court held 5 to 4 on 12/11/00 that an arbitration agreement is not rendered unenforceable because it does not identify who will pay the costs of an arbitration or how much those costs might be: "The risk that Randolph will be saddled with prohibitive costs is too speculative to justify the invalidation of an arbitration agreement." The Court left open the question whether an arbitration agreement would be enforceable if large arbitration costs in fact precluded a claimant from vindicating federal statutory rights. Resolving a circuit split, the Court also held unanimously that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing with prejudice the underlying claims is a final decision with respect to an arbitration and thus immediately appealable under the Federal Arbitration Act. This case is important because it affirms that arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, employment agreements, and other transactions involving parties with unequal financial resources are not per se unenforceable because those clauses are silent on who shall pay the costs of arbitration. It leaves open, however, the question of what costs may be imposed in such cases.