U.S. Supreme Court Rules CBA Can Require Employees to Arbitrate Statutory Claims

July 12, 2009 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

The U.S. Supreme Court in a decision issued this spring has decided that when a collective bargaining agreement,

• Requires statutory discrimination claims to be resolved under the contract’s grievance procedure, and
• allows an individual covered by the CBA (not just the Union) to invoke the arbitration procedure, or
• the Union decides to take a grievance where discrimination is alleged to arbitration

the CBA’s arbitration procedure is the exclusive remedy and the grievant cannot sue in federal court. 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 129 S.Ct. 1456 (2009).

The case arose when a group of employees sued their employer under the federal Age and Discrimination in Employment Act after their union had withdrawn their grievance. The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration under the CBA, relying on the Supreme Court’s longstanding position that a union cannot waive individual members’ statutory claims, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that a CBA with a “clear and unmistakable waiver” can require employees to arbitrate their statutory claims. This decision could deprive union members of their right to file lawsuits under federal employment laws if their CBA contains such a waiver and either the CBA permits individuals to take grievances to arbitration or the union arbitrates their claim.

The impact of the decision on discrimination cases brought solely under California’s discrimination laws remains unclear, as current state law, relying on the Supreme Court’s historic, but now rejected standards, refuses to compel employees to submit their statutory discrimination claims to union grievance procedures.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.