This case involves the enforcement of the ADA. The Supreme Court ruled 11/16/98 that an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement does not require employees to arbitrate claims arising under federal anti-discrimination statutes where the arbitration provision does not clearly and unmistakably waive the employees' right to litigate such claims in federal court.
In this case, Wright sued his employer under the ADA in federal district court. The employer successfully moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Wright had failed to exhaust his remedies (arbitration) under the collective bargaining agreement. However, the Supreme Court held that Wright was not required to arbitrate his ADA claim, because the collective bargaining agreement did not clearly require arbitration of claims arising under federal anti-discrimination statutes. The Court further noted that even a sufficiently clear waiver might not be enforceable, but declined to resolve that issue.
NAM Comment: The NAM filed an amicus brief on June 29, 1998, supporting Universal Maritime. We argued that arbitration is a well-established, vital aspect of a broad range of legal relationships, and that arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements should be enforced. While this decision is a temporary setback for having these issues resolved through arbitration, companies can include more express language in collective bargaining agreements that clearly encompass the resolution of statutory claims, and we will await another Supreme Court case to resolve whether such provisions will be enforced by the courts.