Supreme Court of the United States
14 Penn Plaza LLC Etal. v. Pyett
April 1, 2009556 U.S. 247
Summary
The Supreme Court held that a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. Applying the NLRA and the ADEA together, the Court reasoned that arbitration of employment-discrimination claims is a condition of employment and mandatory subject of bargaining under 29 U.S.C. §159(a), that the ADEA does not preclude arbitration of claims under the statute, and that the Gardner-Denver trilogy addressed only whether arbitration of contract-based claims precludes subsequent statutory suits, while its antiarbitration dicta rested on a misconceived view of arbitration the Court has since abandoned. The Court held respondents' contract-based arguments forfeited for not being raised below and reserved the question whether the CBA allows the Union to prevent effective vindication of federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum, reversing and remanding. Justice Stevens filed a dissent, and Justice Souter filed a dissent joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., contending that Gardner-Denver controls under stare decisis and that such union-negotiated waivers of federal forum rights are unenforceable.
Holding
- Whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.. Yes. A collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.
- Whether the Gardner-Denver line of cases forbids enforcement of collective-bargaining provisions requiring arbitration of statutory antidiscrimination claims.. No. Gardner-Denver, Barrentine, and McDonald addressed only whether arbitration of contract-based claims precluded subsequent judicial resolution of statutory claims where the CBAs did not cover statutory claims; they do not control where the CBA's arbitration provision expressly covers both statutory and contractual discrimination claims, and their broad antiarbitration dicta rested on a misconceived view of arbitration the Court has since abandoned.
- Whether respondents' arguments that the CBA does not clearly and unmistakably require arbitration of their ADEA claims, and their claim that the CBA lets the Union block effective vindication of federal rights, required decision.. Respondents' contract-based arguments were forfeited because they were not raised in the District Court or the Court of Appeals, and the Court declined to resolve in the first instance whether the CBA allows the Union to prevent respondents from effectively vindicating their federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum.
Docket 07-581
Cited authorities
- 9 U.S.C. § 4.3
- 9 U.S.C. §§16
- Rule 14.1(a)
- 29 U.S.C. §159
- 29 U.S.C. §621
- 29 U.S.C. §159
- 81 Stat. 602
- 29 U.S.C. §621
Cited by
- Johnnie Canales v. Torn and Glasser, Inc.
- Tremaine Daniels v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Carol A. Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc., & others
- Jerome Spencer, Sheila Brown and Cynthia Anderson v. Local 26
- Brendan J. Lydon v. Local 103, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
- Winston Lawrence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., Peter Fidos, and Sandra Atlas Bass
- Edinburg United Police Officers Association v. City of Edinburg, Texas
- Ramos v. Envoy Air Inc