Labor & Employment Law

6th Circuit Holds That Labor Arbitration Decision Does Not Bar ADA Litigation

6^th Circuit Holds That Labor Arbitration Decision Does Not Bar ADA Litigation
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/

Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2008, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Nance v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., ___F.3d___(6th Cir. May 23, 2008) is an important decision. It concerns the affect of a prior arbitration on the ability of a plaintiff to pursue an ADA case in federal court. The court holds that such employee's can pursue such a claim in federal court and therefore, in a sense the employee gets two bites at the apple.

The court reasoned:

We find it difficult to distinguish this case from Alexander. In Alexander, the Court considered whether an adverse arbitration decision finding that Alexander was fired for ?just cause? had a preclusive effect, and here, we consider whether an adverse arbitration decision finding that Nance ?resigned without notice? has a preclusive effect. Both cases involve the adjudication of statutorily guaranteed rights, an inquiry that Congress reposed in federal courts.
This is also not the first time this Circuit has confronted and answered this question. In Becton v. Detroit Terminal of Consol. Freightways, 687 F.2d 140, 141-42 (6th Cir. 1982), the plaintiff, a discharged employee, appealed the district court?s conclusion that a prior arbitration on whether the employee had been fired for ?just cause? precluded a federal court from considering evidence on the underlying racial-discrimination claim. We concluded that the district court engaged in ?an impractical and excessively narrow application of [Alexander],? id. at 142, because ?[t]here is no realistic way to sever the discharge from the claim of discrimination,? id. ?Inasmuch as ?just cause? or similar contract questions are an integral part of many discrimination claims, the better rule avoids judicial efforts to separate and classify evidence offered by the plaintiff under the heading of ?discrimination? or ?just cause.?? Id.

The key point in this line of cases is clear: While the expertise of arbitrators lies in the application of facts to the terms of an employee?s contract or collective bargaining agreement, the expertise of federal courts lies in the application of facts to anti-discrimination statutes. In other words, because ?the specialized competence of arbitrators pertains primarily to the law of the shop, not the law of the land,? Alexander, 415 U.S. at 57, whether Nance resigned without notice might mean one thing under Goodyear?s CBA, but it might very well mean an entirely different thing for the purposes of an ?adverse employment action? under the ADA. Thus, the legal and factual issues raised in Nance?s ADA claim are beyond the competence of the ordinary arbitrator whose primary expertise concerns ?the demands and norms of industrial relations.? Id.

This is a critically important issue in employment discrimination that likely will be clarified by the Supreme Court in the pending Pyett case. My review of Pyett v. Penn Building, ___F.3d___ (2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2007), cert granted, is available here.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 30, 2008 (boomark / email).