Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Esparaza, in both her individual and official capacities, is entitled to summary judgment on Count Three because Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that she took any adverse action against him. The remaining Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Count Three because the Arbitrator’s 1998 decision included factual findings which eliminated all support for Plaintiffs claim pursuant to the Michigan Constitution. For the reasons discussed below, the Court does not agree. The Court has serious doubts that the arbitration proceeding, or the Arbitrator’s findings, are capable of precluding a claim brought pursuant to the Michigan Constitution on a retaliation theory. See Arslanian v. Oakwood United Hospitals et al., 2000 WL 461585 (Mich.App. April 21, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, even if the Arbitrator’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement (B) holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award (C) holding that the claim accrued after the employer denied a request for arbitration as untimely under the collective bargaining agreement (D) holding that arbitration pursuant to collective bargaining agreement is not res judicata and cannot collaterally estop a civil rights claim (E) holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights
Output (English): holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement