Document: 525 U.S. 70119 S.Ct. 391142 L.Ed.2d 361 WRIGHT v. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP.(97-889)121 F.3d 702, vacated and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 No. 97 889 CEASAR WRIGHT, PETITIONER CORPORATION et al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT [November 16, 1998] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents question whether a general arbitration clause in collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) requires an employee to use procedure for alleged violation Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 seq. 2 * In 1970, petitioner Ceasar Wright began working as longshoreman Charleston, South Carolina. He was member Local 1422 International Longshoremen's Association, AFL CIO (Union), which uses hiring hall supply workers several stevedore companies represented by Carolina Stevedores Association (SCSA). Clause 15(B) CBA between Union SCSA provides part follows: "Matters under dispute cannot be promptly settled individual Employer shall, no later than 48 hours after such discussion, referred writing covering entire grievance Port Grievance Committee ." App. 43a. If Committee, is evenly divided representatives labor management, reach within five days receiving complaint, then must District also two sides. The that majority decision "shall final binding." 44a. 72 meeting, committee employ professional arbitrator. 3 15(F) 4 "The agrees this Agreement intended cover all matters affecting wages, hours, other terms conditions employment during term Employers will not required negotiate on any further these or subjects specifically set forth Agreement. Anything contained shall construed being All past port practices observed may reduced each port." 45a 46a. 5 Finally, 17 states: "It intention purpose parties hereto provision violative Federal State Law." 47a. 6 subject Longshore Seniority Plan, its own provision, reading "Any concerning arising out and/or Agreement, involving interpretation application rule adopted implementation, Board." 48a. Board equally management representatives. board reaches vote, determination binding. resolve dispute, choose person, "Committee two" makes determination. 7 On February 18, 1992, while respondent Stevens Shipping Terminal Company (Stevens), he injured his right heel back. sought compensation from permanent disability Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 1424, amended, 33 901 seq., ultimately claim $250,000 $10,000 attorney's fees. awarded Social Security benefits. 8 January 1995 returned asked work. (At some point obtained written note doctor approving activity.) Between 11, worked four stevedoring companies, none complained about performance. When, however, realized had previously disability, they informed would accept employment, because person certified permanently disabled (which regarded be) qualified perform longshore work CBA. responded employers misconstrued CBA, suggested ADA entitled return if could duties, asserted refusing constitute "lock-out" 9 When found longer him contacted ask how get back claims instead suggesting filing grievance, told obtain counsel file ADA. hired attorney eventually filed charges discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Human Affairs Commission, alleging violated October 1995, received right-to-sue letter EEOC. 10 1996, complaint against six United States Court Respondents' answer various affirmative defenses, including Wright's failure exhaust remedies Plan. After discovery, respondents moved summary judgment partial respect respondents' defenses. A Magistrate Judge recommended dismiss without prejudice failed pursue provided report recommendation subsequently rejected motion reconsideration. Appeals Fourth Circuit affirmed, see 96 2850 (July 29, 1997), judgt. order reported at 121 relying upon earlier Austin Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., 78 875, cert. denied, 519 980 (1996), turn relied our Gilmer Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 20 (1991). We granted certiorari, 522 ___ (1998). II 11 case, concluded governing sufficiently broad encompass statutory ADA, enforceable. latter conclusion brings into lines law. first Alexander Gardner-Denver Co., 415 36 (1974), held does forfeit judicial forum claimed discriminatory discharge Title VII Civil Rights 1964, 253, 2000e "he pursues nondiscrimination agreement." U.S., 49. rejecting argument doctrine election barred lawsuit, we reasoned designed vindicate "contractual right" lawsuit asserts "independent rights accorded Congress." Id., 49 50. cause action waived union's since "there can prospective waiver employee's VII." 51. have followed holding deciding effect statutes. See McDonald West Branch, 466 284 (1984) (claim 1983); Barrentine Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 728 (1981) Fair Labor Standards 29 201 seq.). 12 second line cases implicated here supra, brought Age Discrimination 1967 (ADEA), 81 602, 621 compulsory pursuant securities registration form. Relying federal policy favoring embodied Arbitration (FAA), said "statutory agreement, enforceable FAA." 26 (citing Rodriguez de Quijas Shearson/American Express, 490 477 (1989); Inc. McMahon, 482 220 (1987); Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 614 (1985)). 13 There obviously tension cases. Whereas stated "an are susceptible waiver," 51 52, ADEA waived. Petitioner amicus us reconcile authority maintaining union-negotiated CBAs even individually executed contracts distinction assuredly finds support text Gilmer, 26, 35. Respondents their amici, hand, contend real difference radical change, over decades, Court's receptivity arbitration, leading affirm "questions arbitrability addressed healthy regard arbitration," (internal quotation marks citation omitted); argue, has undermined union waive employees' forum. Although, appear, find relevant purposes before us, it unnecessary validity waiver, apparent facts arguments presented here, occurred. III 14 asserting existence arbitrate claim, rely presumption §301 Management Relations 1947 (LMRA), 61 156, 185.1 generally Steelworkers Enterprise Wheel & Car 363 593 (1960); American Mfg. 564 Warrior Gulf Nav. 574 (1960). collective bargaining agreements, said, sense '[a]n particular should denied unless positive assurance covers dispute.' " AT&T Technologies, Communications Workers, 475 643, 650 (1986) (quoting Gulf, 582 583). 15 That presumption, extend beyond principal rationale justifies it, arbitrators better position courts interpret 650; 581 582. very LMRA, announces "[f]inal adjustment method agreed declared desirable settlement disputes existing 173(d) (emphasis added). present concerns but meaning statute. arises contract, distinct conferred agreement. 34; Barrentine, 737; Gardner-Denver, To sure, argue requires, were true still prevail refusal hire 16 Nor (as opposed contractual) focus altered fact recites "the As discuss below Part IV, incorporate reference. Even did so, however thereby creating contractual coextensive ultimate arbitrator what to, law requires; presumed included requirement. Application principle unaffected unlike one expressly limit interpreting applying contract. only extends far, similarly limited. It well ordinary textual analysis show go contract arbitration; so. IV Not petitioner's arbitrability; think requirement particularly clear. Metropolitan Edison Co. NLRB, 460 693 (1983), officers' §8(a)(3) National 158(a)(3), free antiunion discrimination, clear unmistakable. "[W]e infer statutorily protected undertaking 'explicitly stated.' More succinctly, unmistakable." 708; Livadas Bradshaw, 512 107, 125 (1994) (dictum); Lingle Norge Div. Magic Chef, 486 399, 409, n. (1988) cf. Mastro Plastics 350 270, 283 (1956). 18 same standard applicable discrimination. Although substantive right, Gardner-Denver's seemingly absolute prohibition survives least stands proposition sufficient importance less-than-explicit meet standard. Its general, providing "[m]atters dispute," 43a understood mean And remainder contains explicit incorporation antidiscrimination requirements. (Indeed, contain, specific provision.) equivalently "any controversy" embrace claims. But involved individual's rights, rather employees hence "clear unmistakable" applicable. 19 states "this employment." could, isolation, considered unmistakable employment-discrimination laws doubtful), surely deprived paragraph, "[a]nything Agreement." "[i]t They "apply legal definitions derived ADA" determining "qualified" Brief 39. Perhaps making compliance commitment clause. becomes crystal when contrasts "[t]he requirements Occupations [sic] Safety Health Administration binding both Parties." (Under 17, OSHA superfluous.) seems nothing more recitation canon construction event been applied interpreted fashion preserve, destroy, (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). do Like itself, Plan provision; limits related agreement.2 21 22 hold contain covered vacated, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. Notes 23 1. discerned FAA, 614, 626 (1985). argued FAA apply 43 44, "have stage F.A.A. applies," id., 43. assertion, nor applicability us; rather, contended applies, LMRA same, 12; Tr. Oral Arg. Circuit, cited Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. 1, 24 25 explicitly presumably elsewhere CBAs, 879 (CA4), (1996). circumstances, decline consider case. 2. amici "[w]here appropriate extent authorized law, alternative means resolution, encouraged chapter." 12212. principally connection whether, (1991), predispute reach. Our that, absent "appropriate," arbitrate. take position, where clearly encompasses claims, areas outside bargaining.

Category: 6