14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), is a United States labor law case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court.

Pyett's lawyers, in addition to arguing that a union could not legally bargain away an employee's right to pursue an ADEA claim in court, also argued that "the facts... [show that the union] Local32BJ... has not done so in this case." However, because these arguments had not been raised in the lower courts, the Supreme Court chose not to consider them and decided that the Collective Bargaining Agreement in this case did mandate that the employees' ADEA claims had to be resolved through arbitration.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, employees who were covered under union contracts, often referred to as bargaining unit members, had been able to raise any claims of civil rights violations by their employer in court. This had been the case regardless of the language which was stated in their union contract, a document often referred to as a collective bargaining agreement, or CBA.

Contents

• 1 Facts

  • 1.1 Grievance and arbitration

  • 1.2 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

  • 1.3 District court

  • 1.4 U.S. Court of Appeals

• 2 Judgment

  • 2.1 Souter's dissent

  • 2.2 Stevens' dissent

• 3 Significance

  • 3.1 Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Corp.

  • 3.2 AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

  • 3.3 Marmet Health Care Center v. Brown

  • 3.4 Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011

  • 3.5 Community support for the bill

• 4 See also

• 5 Notes

• 6 References

• 7 External links

Facts

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14_Penn_Plaza_LLC_v._Pyett&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts")

Steven Pyett, Thomas O' Connell and Michael Phillips worked for Temco Service Industries, Inc., a maintenance service and cleaning contractor in New York City . Pyett and O'Connell were night watchmen and Phillips held a similar position as a night-starter at an office building owned by Pennsylvania Building Company and 14 Penn Plaza, LLC.

The men were members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 32BJ . Their positions at Temco were covered under a collective bargaining agreement that their union Local 32BJ had signed with the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations (RAB). The RAB represented both Temco and 14 Penn Plaza in labor matters.

In August 2003, after receiving consent from the SEIU Local 32BJ, 14 Penn Plaza hired the unionized firm Spartan Security to provide licensed security guard services. Newly contracted security guards were assigned to the building where Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips worked, and Temco reassigned the men to other positions in the same building as night porters and light duty cleaners.

"As the only building employees over the age of 50," Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips believed that their job reassignments to less desirable and less lucrative positions were the result of age discrimination and requested that their union file a grievance over the matter.

The workers' age discrimination claims progressed through four stages spanning five years on its way to the Supreme Court. Here is a summary of that path.

Grievance and arbitration

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14_Penn_Plaza_LLC_v._Pyett&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Grievance and arbitration")

The union filed grievances alleging that Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips' job reassignments had violated the collective bargaining agreement by:

1. discriminating against Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips on account of their age,
2. neglecting seniority rights by not promoting either Pyett or O'Connell to an assistant mechanic position, and
3. negatively affecting each of the three worker's wages by rotating overtime inequitably.

Arbitrator Earl Pfeffer held his initial hearing on the Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips grievances on February 2, 2004. A few weeks later, in a letter dated February 23, 2004, the union withdrew the charge of age discrimination from the grievances. Having previously agreed to the hiring of the licensed security guards, the union believed it could not "legitimately object to [the workers'] reassignments as discriminatory."

After several hearings, the arbitrator rendered his opinion on August 10, 2005, denying the other grievance claims.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14_Penn_Plaza_LLC_v._Pyett&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission")

On May 26, 2004, Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips each filed age discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . After reviewing the evidence, the EEOC dismissed each of the men's complaints. Per the agency's practice when its investigation does not substantiate a charge that has been made, the EEOC issued each man a letter of Dismissal and Notice of Rights. The letters notified the men of their right to file a lawsuit in court.

District court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14_Penn_Plaza_LLC_v._Pyett&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: District court")

On August 21, 2004, Pyett, O' Connell and Phillips sued SEIU Local 32BJ. Their lawsuit claimed that the union had breached its duty of fair representation when it withdrew their age discrimination grievance charges. The workers later dropped their lawsuit against the union after the arbitrator rendered his decision on their remaining grievances in August 2005.

Then, on September 23, 2004, the men filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania Building Company,14 Penn Plaza, LLC and Temco in District Court . The lawsuit charged that their job reassignments were in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The companies filed a motion to dismiss the charges as well as a motion to compel arbitration under sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [9 U. S. C. §§3]. On May 31, 2006, District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied both motions. In denying the motion to compel arbitration, Judge Buchwald cited a phrase that would later be used by the Supreme Court in their decision to reverse the Court of Appeals ruling. She cited that it was "binding... precedent that even a clear and unmistakable union-negotiated waiver of a right to litigate certain... claims in a judicial forum is unenforceable."

U.S. Court of Appeals

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14_Penn_Plaza_LLC_v._Pyett&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: U.S. Court of Appeals")

On June 1, 2006, Pennsylvania Building Company,14 Penn Plaza, LLC and Temco appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Their appeal again sought to compel the plaintiffs to resolve their claims of age discrimination through arbitration.

On August 1, 2007, Appeals Court Judge José Cabranes upheld the District Court's decision to deny the companies' motion to compel arbitration. In his decision he wrote that "mandatory arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements are unenforc

…