Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.
525 U.S. 70 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a union to waive an employee's statutory right to a judicial forum for claims of employment discrimination, the waiver within the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) must be clear and unmistakable. A broad, general arbitration clause covering all disputes is insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Ceasar Wright was a longshoreman and a member of the International Longshoremen’s Association (Union), whose employment was governed by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Union and the South Carolina Stevedores Association (SCSA).
- The CBA contained a general arbitration clause for resolving 'Matters under dispute.'
- In 1992, Wright injured his heel and back on the job, and he subsequently settled a claim for permanent disability benefits.
- In January 1995, after his doctor approved his return to work, Wright sought employment through the Union hiring hall.
- After working for several days, the stevedoring companies learned of Wright's prior permanent disability settlement and refused to hire him further, believing him to be unqualified under the CBA.
- The Union disagreed with the companies' position but advised Wright to hire an attorney and file a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Procedural Posture:
- Ceasar Wright filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the South Carolina State Human Affairs Commission.
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Wright filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against the SCSA and several stevedoring companies, alleging ADA violations.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, finding that Wright had failed to exhaust his remedies under the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedure.
- Wright, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Fourth Circuit, with the SCSA and stevedoring companies as appellees, affirmed the district court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Wright's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 a general arbitration clause in a collective-bargaining agreement, which does not explicitly mention statutory claims, require an employee to arbitrate an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A general arbitration clause in a CBA that does not explicitly waive the right to a judicial forum for statutory claims does not require an employee to arbitrate an ADA violation. The Court held that a union-negotiated waiver of an employee’s statutory right to a judicial forum for discrimination claims must be 'clear and unmistakable.' The arbitration clause in this case was very general, applying to 'Matters under dispute,' and did not explicitly incorporate statutory antidiscrimination requirements. The Court distinguished this situation from 'Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.', which enforced arbitration for an individual who waived his own rights, because a union waiving rights for its members requires a higher standard of clarity. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the underlying tension between its 'Gardner-Denver' line of cases (prohibiting such waivers) and 'Gilmer' (permitting them in individual contracts), because no valid waiver occurred here.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'clear and unmistakable' standard as the high bar for enforcing arbitration of statutory discrimination claims under a CBA. It effectively requires unions and employers to explicitly list the specific statutory rights being waived if they intend for arbitration to be the exclusive remedy. By not resolving the conflict between the 'Gardner-Denver' and 'Gilmer' precedents, the Court left open the question of whether a clear and unmistakable waiver would even be enforceable, but it significantly narrowed the circumstances under which the issue could arise. The ruling protects employees' access to federal courts for civil rights claims unless a union has explicitly and knowingly bargained that right away.
