Mathews v. Denver Newspaper Agency LLP
649 F.3d 1199 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's arbitration of a contractual discrimination claim under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) does not preclude a subsequent lawsuit for statutory discrimination claims arising from the same facts, unless the CBA contains a clear and unmistakable waiver of the employee's right to a judicial forum for such statutory claims.
Facts:
- John Mathews, originally from southern India, worked as a Unit Supervisor for the Denver Newspaper Agency LLP (the "Agency") and was a member of the Denver Mailers Union No. 8.
- Mathews's employment was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that contained a clause prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin, as required by state and federal laws.
- On May 31, 2005, Mathews sent an email to Agency management accusing them of making personnel decisions based on race, color, and national origin.
- In June 2005, a female employee under Mathews's supervision complained to her union steward about inappropriate comments Mathews allegedly made.
- On June 17, 2005, the Agency placed Mathews on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into the female employee's complaint.
- On July 1, 2005, the Agency informed Mathews that he would be demoted from his Unit Supervisor position.
- Following the arbitrator's decision against him, Mathews applied for and was awarded Social Security disability benefits, alleging he was totally disabled and unable to work as of June 11, 2005, a date prior to his demotion.
Procedural Posture:
- John Mathews filed a grievance against the Denver Newspaper Agency, alleging his demotion violated the anti-discrimination clause of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Mathews submitted his amended grievance to final and binding arbitration as provided by the CBA.
- The arbitrator denied Mathews's grievance, concluding that the Agency had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the demotion.
- Mathews then filed a lawsuit in Colorado state court, asserting statutory discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The Agency removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency, ruling that the prior arbitral decision precluded Mathews's statutory claims and, alternatively, that Mathews failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory demotion.
- Mathews (Appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the Agency as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's submission of a contractual discrimination claim to binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement waive or preclude the employee from later litigating federal statutory discrimination claims in court, where the agreement does not expressly cover statutory claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, J.
No. The submission of a contractual grievance to arbitration does not waive or preclude a subsequent lawsuit based on statutory rights unless the arbitration agreement expressly covers those statutory claims. The court reasoned that this case is governed by Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., which established that contractual and statutory rights are distinct, even when they arise from the same facts. The CBA's arbitration clause only authorized the arbitrator to resolve disputes concerning the contract's interpretation, not federal statutory claims. Unlike the agreement in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, this CBA lacked a 'clear and unmistakable' waiver of the right to a judicial forum for statutory claims. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision on the contractual claim has no preclusive effect on Mathews's statutory claims. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the discriminatory demotion claim on separate grounds, finding that Mathews was judicially estopped from arguing he was qualified for his position because he had successfully claimed total disability to the Social Security Administration for the same time period. The retaliation claim was remanded for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of the Gardner-Denver doctrine, clarifying that the Supreme Court's more recent decision in 14 Penn Plaza is limited to situations where a collective bargaining agreement contains an explicit and unambiguous waiver of an employee's right to litigate statutory claims. The case serves as a crucial reminder for practitioners that the scope of an arbitration clause is paramount; a general non-discrimination clause in a CBA that mirrors statutory language is not, by itself, sufficient to preclude a later federal court action. Furthermore, the ruling provides a clear application of judicial estoppel, demonstrating how an employee's representations in a disability benefits proceeding can bar a subsequent discrimination claim by negating the essential 'qualification' element of the prima facie case.
