14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett

rdf:langString 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett

rdf:langString

rdf:langString 14 Penn Plaza LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Steven Pyett, et al.

rdf:langString Souter

rdf:langString Stevens

rdf:langString Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer

rdf:langString Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito

rdf:langString Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159

rdf:langString A provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. This CBA clearly and unmistakably requires respondents to arbitrate the age discrimination claims at issue in this appeal. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed.

rdf:langString Thomas

rdf:langString Supreme Court

rdf:langString 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 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.