Carson v. Giant Food, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was insufficient that the CBA “contain[ed] antidiscrimi-nation provisions stating that the company and the union agree not to discriminate on the basis of race or age.”
• concluding that arbitrability was a question for the court when the parties broadly agreed to “arbitration to resolve disputes ‘regarding the terms of this Agreement’ and ‘concerning the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement’”
• explaining that the “requisite degree of clarity can be achieved by two different approaches,” either: (1
• explaining that parties who wish to let an arbitrator decide arbitrability should use language such as “all disputes concerning the arbitrability of particular disputes under this contract are hereby committed to arbitration”
• noting “collective bargaining agreements to arbitrate [statutory discrimination] claims, unlike contracts executed by individuals, must be clear and unmistakable” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)
• requiring arbitration of “‘any grievance or dispute aris[ing] between the parties regarding the terms of this Agreement’ and any ‘controversy, dispute or disagreement . . . concerning the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).