| |
 |
|
| |
 |
Firm News/Events
back to News/Events
|
| Collective Bargaining Agreement Forces Arbitration of Age Discrimination Claims
May 1, 2009
The United States Supreme Court, in 14 Penn Plaza, LLC, et al. v. Pyett, et al. , held on April 1, 2009, that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly requires union members to arbitrate age discrimination claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.
The plaintiffs were employees of Temco Service Industries, Inc., a maintenance and cleaning contractor and members of the Service Employees International Union ("Union"). 14 Penn Plaza, LLC owns and operates the New York City office building where plaintiffs worked as security guards and in other capacities. 14 Penn Plaza, LLC is a member of the Realty Advisory Board ("RAB") which is a multi-employer bargaining association for the New York City real estate industry. The Union and the RAB entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") for contractors and building owners. The CBA requires union members to submit all claims of employment discrimination to binding arbitration under the CBA's grievance and dispute resolution procedures.
In this case, plaintiffs contended that their reassignment from positions as licensed security guards to positions as porters and cleaners led to a loss of income, other damages and violated the CBA's ban on workplace discrimination by reassigning plaintiffs on the basis of their age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). The Union requested arbitration for a number of claims under the CBA, but later withdrew the age discrimination claims on the grounds that its consent to the new security contract for 14 Penn Plaza, LLC precluded it from objecting to plaintiffs' reassignment as discriminatory. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that their ADEA rights had been violated and the EEOC issued each of them a right to sue notice.
The lower court denied the motion to compel arbitration of the age discrimination claims and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, holding that a union negotiated waiver of a right to litigate certain federal and state statutory claims in a judicial forum is unenforceable as that would waive employees' rights to a federal forum with respect to those claims, such as ADEA discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court heard the case to determine whether a provision in a collective bargaining agreement which requires union members to arbitrate all claims of employment discrimination is enforceable. The Supreme Court held that a collective bargaining agreement that "clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law." The Court noted that nothing in the ADEA itself precludes contractual arbitration. The Supreme Court elaborated that it was correct to determine that federal anti-discrimination rights may not be prospectively waived but an agreement to arbitrate those statutory claims is not a prospective waiver of the substantive right.
However, the Supreme Court specifically explicitly reserved the question whether a CBA's waiver of a judicial forum is enforceable when a union controls access to and presentation of employees' claims in arbitration.
Although this Supreme Court decision does leave some unanswered questions, it indicates the trend favoring arbitration of disputes, even when involving statutory rights.
|
|
Related Practice Areas: Transactional Law, Employment Law Practice
Related Attorneys: Jeffrey Walsworth, Cindy R. Hughes
|
|
|
|
|
|
