When Matthew Shankle was hired by B-G Maintenance Management, he signed an employment agreement that included a binding arbitration clause. This clause stated that any disputes between Shankle and B-G were to be resolved through arbitration and that Shankle would “be responsible for one-half of the arbitrator's fees, and the company is responsible for the remaining half.” Shankle was fired, and he brought suit against B-G for employment discrimination. B-G moved to mandate arbitration. The arbitrator required a $6,000 deposit. The district court ruled in Shankle's favor, refusing to compel arbitration because the fee-splitting requirement was held to be unenforceable. B-G appealed. Did the appellate court agree with Shankle? Why or why not? [Shankle v. B-G Maintenance Management of Colorado, 163 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 1999).]