Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 5.2
14 PENN PLAZA LLC, et. al. V. PYETT, ET. AL.
Supreme Court of the United States
556 U.S. 247; 129 S. Ct. 1456, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2497 [April 1, 2009]
FACTS:
Pyett is a member of the Services Employees International Union. The members are building
cleaners, porters, and doorpersons working in New York City.
The union has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Realty Advisory Board on Labor
Relations, Inc. (RAB).
14 Penn Plaza L.L.C. is a member of RAB. It hires unionized workers as night lobby watchmen.
14 Penn Plaza, with the union’s consent employed licensed security guards to staff the lobby and
entrances of its building.
As a result, the night lobby watchmen were reassigned as night porters and cleaners. These jobs
paid less money.
Mr. Pyett and other union members filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) on the grounds of age discrimination by their employer (14 Penn Plaza).
The EEOC did not find a violation but granted the employees (union members) the right to sue.
A lawsuit was filed alleging age discrimination and 14 Penn Plaza sought dismissal of the case.
PROCEDURE: A motion to compel arbitration was denied by the District Court. The Appeals Court
affirmed this decision.
ISSUE: Is a provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly requires union members to
arbitrate claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 enforceable?
RULE: “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.”
REASONING:
1. The court found that the CBA was bargained in good faith and the arbitration clause qualified as a
condition of employment subject to mandatory bargaining.
2. Complex questions of both law and fact have been handled successfully in arbitration proceedings.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The court recognized that apart from the narrow holdings, the Gardner-Denver line of cases
included broad dicta that were highly critical of the use of arbitration for the vindication of
