Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1133 (2002); Stein v. Geonerco, Inc., 105 Wn. App. 41, 45, 17 P.3d 1266 (2001); Tjart v. Smith Barney, Inc., 107 Wn. App. 885, 893, 28 P.3d 823 (2001), review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1027, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 954 (2002). The party opposing arbitration bears the burden of showing that the agreement is not enforceable. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92, 121 S. Ct. 513, 148 L. Ed. 2d 373 (2000). WLAD Requirements f 13 Relying on cases holding that an exclusive remedies provision in a collective bargaining agreement does not prevent employees from initiating civil suits in court for violations of the WLAD, Adler argues that the WLAD requires a judicial forum for discrimination claims of employees. See Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 107 Wn.2d 563, 577, 731 P.2d 497 (1987) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Phillips v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union (B) holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union (C) holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement (D) holding that a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate is binding upon individual employees even when dispute involves federal cause of action (E) holding that chapter 4960 rcw permits individual employees to pursue their rights under the wlad in court without first exhausting remedies in a collective bargaining agreement
Output (English): holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement