Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 · Labor Law

525 U.S. 70 (1999)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawwaiver of judicial forumarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementsADAclear and unmistakable waivercollective bargaining agreementjudicial forum

Facts

Wright, a longshoreman represented by a union, had worked under a collective-bargaining agreement and a Longshore Seniority Plan that both contained grievance and arbitration procedures. After Wright had settled a permanent-disability claim and later returned seeking work, stevedoring companies refused to accept him because they regarded him as unqualified for longshore work under the CBA. Wright then filed discrimination charges and ultimately sued under the ADA in federal court. The CBA contained a broad grievance clause covering '[m]atters under dispute' and provisions stating that the agreement covered matters affecting wages, hours, and working conditions and that no provision should violate federal or state law, but it did not contain an explicit antidiscrimination provision or explicit reference to ADA claims.

Issue

Whether the general arbitration provisions in the collective-bargaining agreement and Seniority Plan required Wright to arbitrate his ADA claim rather than pursue it in federal court. More specifically, the question was whether the agreement contained a clear and unmistakable waiver of employees' right to a judicial forum for federal employment-discrimination claims.

Rule

A union-negotiated waiver in a collective-bargaining agreement of employees' right to a judicial forum for federal employment-discrimination claims must be clear and unmistakable. The usual presumption of arbitrability for labor contracts does not extend to statutory claims that concern the meaning of federal law rather than the application or interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement.

🔒

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.

Nadia Flores works for Lakefront Parcel Logistics in Cleveland under a collective-bargaining agreement negotiated by her union. The agreement requires arbitration of "all disputes arising under this agreement" and also states that the parties intend to comply with all federal and state employment laws, but it never mentions discrimination statutes or statutory claims. Nadia files an ADA suit in federal court after being denied reassignment.

Is Nadia most likely required to arbitrate her ADA claim before proceeding in federal court?

Explanation. The majority held that a union-negotiated waiver of employees' right to a judicial forum for federal employment-discrimination claims must be clear and unmistakable. General language requiring arbitration of disputes arising under the agreement, coupled with a general statement of compliance with law, does not clearly incorporate statutory discrimination claims into arbitration. The Court also did not decide that such waivers are never enforceable; it held only that the waiver here was insufficiently explicit.