Supreme Court Rules ADEA Claims Are Subject to Arbitration Under Collective Bargaining Agreement
April 3, 2009
The United States Supreme Court ruled this week that a collective bargaining agreement “clearly and unmistakably" requiring union members to arbitrate federal age discrimination claims was enforceable.
The case involved union members who worked as night watchmen at a New York office building owned by Penn. Penn and the union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that expressly prohibited age discrimination. The CBA also provided that discrimination claims “shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures . . . as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.”
When Penn hired licensed guards for its building, the watchmen were reassigned to other jobs. The watchmen’s union filed grievances challenging the reassignments under the CBA's prohibition on age discrimination, among other grounds. The union eventually sought arbitration but, after an initial hearing, withdrew the age discrimination claims. The watchmen took their claims to EEOC and then federal court.
Penn moved to compel arbitration. The District Court and the Court of Appeals refused, finding that a collective bargaining agreement could not waive workers' rights to a judicial forum for causes of action created by Congress.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The parties collectively bargained that employment-related discrimination claims would be resolved in arbitration and “this freely negotiated term” is a condition of employment that is subject to mandatory bargaining. The Court noted that the “decision to fashion a CBA to require arbitration of employment-discrimination claims is no different from the many other decisions made by parties in designing grievance machinery.” Because the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not remove itself "from the NLRA's broad sweep,” arbitration was required.
Questions regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in 114 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett may be directed to any of the labor and employment law attorneys at Taft.
The case involved union members who worked as night watchmen at a New York office building owned by Penn. Penn and the union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that expressly prohibited age discrimination. The CBA also provided that discrimination claims “shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures . . . as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.”
When Penn hired licensed guards for its building, the watchmen were reassigned to other jobs. The watchmen’s union filed grievances challenging the reassignments under the CBA's prohibition on age discrimination, among other grounds. The union eventually sought arbitration but, after an initial hearing, withdrew the age discrimination claims. The watchmen took their claims to EEOC and then federal court.
Penn moved to compel arbitration. The District Court and the Court of Appeals refused, finding that a collective bargaining agreement could not waive workers' rights to a judicial forum for causes of action created by Congress.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The parties collectively bargained that employment-related discrimination claims would be resolved in arbitration and “this freely negotiated term” is a condition of employment that is subject to mandatory bargaining. The Court noted that the “decision to fashion a CBA to require arbitration of employment-discrimination claims is no different from the many other decisions made by parties in designing grievance machinery.” Because the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not remove itself "from the NLRA's broad sweep,” arbitration was required.
Questions regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in 114 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett may be directed to any of the labor and employment law attorneys at Taft.
