14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Labor Law
Labor LawArbitrationCollective BargainingAge Discrimination in Employment ActNLRAADEAcollective-bargaining agreementarbitration

Facts

Respondents were union members covered by a collective-bargaining agreement between their union and a multiemployer bargaining association. That CBA stated that discrimination claims, including claims under the ADEA, were subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures as the sole and exclusive remedy. After respondents were reassigned from lobby watchman positions to porter and cleaner jobs, the union filed grievances including age-discrimination claims but later withdrew the age claims from arbitration while continuing with other grievances. Respondents then filed EEOC charges, received right-to-sue notices, and brought an ADEA action in federal court.

Issue

Whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the ADEA is enforceable. Also, whether Gardner-Denver bars enforcement of such a provision.

Rule

Under federal law, a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable. The NLRA authorizes collective bargaining over such arbitration provisions, and the ADEA does not preclude arbitration of those statutory claims.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Warehouse employees in Cleveland are represented by Local 412 under a collective-bargaining agreement with Lakefront Distribution Group. The agreement states that claims of discrimination "including claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act" must be resolved through the contract's grievance and binding arbitration procedures as the "sole and exclusive remedy." After being laid off, 58-year-old Daniel Ortiz files an ADEA suit in federal court.

If Lakefront moves to compel arbitration, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a collective-bargaining agreement clearly and unmistakably requiring union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. The NLRA permits bargaining over such arbitration provisions, and the ADEA does not preclude arbitration of ADEA claims. The employee waives only the judicial forum in the first instance, not the substantive age-discrimination right. (Derived from 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett (n.d.).)