Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Blanchette v. School Committee of Westwood

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePreclusionWaiverJudicial EstoppelArbitrationEmployment Discriminationres judicataclaim preclusion

Facts

Blanchette, a library media specialist and union member, complained of sexual harassment by her principal and later filed charges with the EEOC and MCAD. After a new principal evaluated her negatively and recommended against tenure, the committee did not renew her employment. The association filed two grievances alleging that the negative evaluation and nonrenewal were retaliatory and violated the collective bargaining agreement, and those grievances were consolidated in arbitration. The arbitrator ruled for Blanchette on contractual violations, awarded reinstatement or lump-sum back pay and other relief, but expressly limited her decision to contractual violations and did not decide any statutory retaliation claim.

Issue

Whether Blanchette's prior arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement barred or waived her subsequent court action asserting retaliation under G. L. c. 151B, § 4(4), or whether her litigation position was barred by judicial estoppel.

Rule

When a collective bargaining agreement and the governing statute limit arbitration to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the agreement, arbitration resolves contractual rights only and does not preclude a later judicial action asserting independent statutory antidiscrimination rights that were not fully litigated and carefully decided in arbitration. Personal statutory rights under G. L. c. 151B are not waived by union membership or by pursuing contractual arbitration absent an explicit and voluntary individual waiver. Judicial estoppel applies only when a party is using the judicial process in a genuinely inconsistent way.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel taught at a public middle school in Worcester, Massachusetts and was covered by a union contract stating that grievances were limited to disputes over the interpretation or application of the agreement. After she complained to a state agency about disability discrimination, the union arbitrated her grievance alleging that a poor evaluation and nonrenewal violated the contract; the arbitrator ordered reinstatement but expressly stated that no statutory discrimination claim was being decided.

If Nina later files a court action under Massachusetts antidiscrimination law based on the same retaliation facts, what is the strongest argument against claim or issue preclusion?

Explanation. The majority held that where the governing statute and agreement limit arbitration to interpretation or application of the collective bargaining agreement, arbitration addresses contractual rights only. A later statutory discrimination or retaliation suit is not precluded unless the statutory right itself was fully litigated and carefully decided. Here, the arbitrator expressly declined to decide the statutory claim, so the independent statutory right was not adjudicated.