Cases by Issue - Arbitration

EEOC v. Waffle House

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1823

Petitioner

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waffle House

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

534 U.S. 279 (2002)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 2001

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Advocates

Paul D. Clement (On behalf of the petitioner)

David L. Gordon (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Waffle House, Inc.'s employees must each sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After he suffered a seizure and was fired by Waffle House, Eric Baker filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The EEOC then filed suit, alleging that Baker?s discharge violated the ADA, and sought injunctive relief and specific relief for Baker, including backpay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages, and punitive damages for malicious and reckless conduct. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Waffle House petitioned to stay the EEOC's suit and compel arbitration. The District Court did not stay the action. The Court of Appeals concluded that the arbitration agreement between Baker and Waffle House did not foreclose the enforcement action because the EEOC was not a party to the contract, but had independent statutory authority to bring suit in any federal district court where venue was proper. The appellate court also held that the EEOC was limited to injunctive relief.

Question

Does an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment- related disputes bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief in an enforcement action alleging that the employer has violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for EEOC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the arbitration agreement did not bar the EEOC from pursuing victim- specific judicial relief in an ADA enforcement action. The Court reasoned that the EECO's statutory enforcement powers unambiguously authorized the EEOC to obtain the relief that it sought in its complaint, if it could prove its case against the employer. The Court further noted that no language existed to suggest that an arbitration agreement between private parties materially changed the EEOC's statutory function or the remedies otherwise available. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia joined.

Circuit City v. Adams

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1379

Petitioner

Circuit City

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 105 (2001)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 2000

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 2001

Advocates

Michael Rubin (Argued the cause for the respondent)

David E. Nagle (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1995, Saint Clair Adams, who was hired as a sales counselor, signed an employment application with Circuit City. A provision in Adams' application required all employment disputes to be settled by arbitration. In 1997, Adams filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Circuit City in California state court. Circuit City then filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking to enjoin the state-court action and to compel arbitration of Adams' claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The District Court entered the requested order. The court concluded that Adams was obligated by the arbitration agreement. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that the arbitration agreement between Adams and Circuit City was contained in a "contract of employment," and thus not subject to the FAA under section 1 of the Act. Section 1 of the FAA excludes "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" from the Act's coverage.

Question

Does the Federal Arbitration Act, which excludes "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" from the Act's coverage, apply to employment contracts?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Circuit City, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 1

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that section 1 exemption is confined to transportation workers. "The wording of [section 1] calls for the application of the maxim ejusdem generis, the statutory canon that 'where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words,'" wrote Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy continued that "[u]nder this rule of construction the residual clause should be read to give effect to the terms 'seamen' and 'railroad employees,' and should itself be controlled and defined by reference to the enumerated categories of workers which are recited just before it; the interpretation of the clause pressed by respondent fails to produce these results." Therefore, section 1 "exempts from the FAA only contracts of employment of transportation workers."

Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-889

Petitioner

Wright

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Universal Maritime Service Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

525 U.S. 70 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1998

Decided

Monday, November 16, 1998

Advocates

Charles A. Edwards (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Ray P. McClain (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Barbara D. Underwood (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Ceasar Wright worked as a longshoreman. He belonged to the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, a union that supplied workers to the South Carolina Stevedores Association (SCSA). In 1992, Wright sustained a worked-related; he sought compensation for permanent disability under federal law. In 1995, Wright returned to Longshoremen's Association to be referred for work. When the stevedoring companies, to which he was referred, discovered that he had previously settled a claim for permanent disability, they informed the union they would not accept Wright for employment. Under the collective- bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Longshoremen's Association and the SCSA, Wright was not qualified to perform longshore work if he was permanently disabled. Wright chose not to file a grievance under the CBA, but instead to file a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged the stevedoring companies and the SCSA had discriminated against him by refusing him work. The District Court dismissed the case because Wright had failed to pursue the grievance procedure -- arbitration -- provided by the CBA. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

May employees sue over alleged discrimination under the ADA when their union contract requires grievances to be handled through arbitration?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Wright, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Yes. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that the CBA's arbitration clause did not require Wright to use the arbitration procedure for the alleged violation of the ADA. In his opinion, Scalia wrote that the CBA did not contain a waiver of the employee's right to a judicial forum for federal claims of employment discrimination.

Air Line Pilots Association v. Miller

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-428

Petitioner

Air Line Pilots Association

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 866 (1998)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1998

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

Advocates

Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Jerry D. Anker (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), a private-sector labor organization, represents pilots employed by Delta Air Lines. The collective-bargaining agreement between ALPA and Delta includes an "agency shop" clause that requires nonunion Delta pilots to pay ALPA a monthly service charge for representing them. 153 Delta pilots challenged in federal-court action the manner in which ALPA calculated agency fees. Under ALPA policy pilots who object to the fee calculation may request arbitration proceedings. When 174 Delta pilots filed objections to the agency-fee calculation, the ALPA treated the objections as requests for arbitration. The arbitrator sustained ALPA's calculation. The District Court concluded that the pilots seeking to challenge the fee calculation must exhaust arbitral remedies before proceeding in court. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. It found no legal basis for requiring objectors to arbitrate agency-fee challenges when they had not agreed to do so.

Question

Must the nonunion pilots go through arbitration before going to court to challenge the fees they are required to pay to the union under the "agency- shop" agreement?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Miller, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

No. In a 7-2 decision, announced by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court ruled the nonunion pilots cannot be forced to go through arbitration. "Unless they agree to the procedure, agency-fee objectors may not be required to exhaust an arbitration remedy before bringing their claims in federal court," wrote Ginsburg.

Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-285

Petitioner

Litton Financial Printing Div.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

501 U.S. 190 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1991

Decided

Thursday, June 13, 1991

Advocates

David A. Rosenfeld (on behalf of the Respondent Printing Specialties)

Mathias J. Diederich (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent NLRB in support of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Litton Financial Printing Div., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-18

Petitioner

Gilmer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

500 U.S. 20 (1991)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1991

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1991

Advocates

James B. Spears (on behalf of the Respondent)

John T. Allred (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-651

Petitioner

Paperworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Misco, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 29 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Advocates

David Silberman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

A. Richard Gear (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Paperworkers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

At&T Technologies v. Communications Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1913

Petitioner

At&T Technologies

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Communications Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 643 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1986

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1986

Advocates

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the respondent)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for At&T Technologies, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Schneider Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1860

Petitioner

Schneider Moving & Storage Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-1862

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 364 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Advocates

Charles W. Bobinette (on behalf of Prosser's Moving and Storage Co)

David F. Yates (on behalf of Schneider Moving and Storage Co)

Russell N. Luplow (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robbins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

W. R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1314

Petitioner

W. R. Grace & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rubber Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 757 (1983)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1983

Advocates

Peter G. Nash (on behalf of Petitioner)

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of Amicus Curiae)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rubber Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Clayton v. Automobile Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5049

Petitioner

Clayton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Automobile Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-54

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 679 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1981

Advocates

Everett F. Meiners (on behalf of Petitioner ITT Gilfillan, etc)

John T. McTernan (on behalf of Petitioner (No. 80-5049) and Respondent (No. 80-54) Clayton; appointed by this Court)

M. Jay Whitman (on behalf of Respondents UAW and its Local 509)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Clayton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-169

Petitioner

United Parcel Service, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 56 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1981

Advocates

Bernard G. Segal (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David Jaroslawicz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United Parcel Service, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-2006

Petitioner

Barrentine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas-Best Freight System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 728 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1981

Advocates

S. Walton Maurras (on behalf of the Respondents)

David C. Vladeck (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Barrentine, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Bakery Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1198

Petitioner

Nolde Bros., Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bakery Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 243 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 9, 1976

Decided

Monday, March 7, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bakery Workers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Buffalo Forge Co. v. Steelworkers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-339

Petitioner

Buffalo Forge Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Steelworkers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

428 U.S. 397 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, July 6, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Steelworkers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1025

Petitioner

Hines

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Anchor Motor Freight

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 554 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hines, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-5847

Petitioner

Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gardner-Denver Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 36 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Alexander, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-782

Petitioner

Gateway Coal Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mine Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 368 (1974)

Argued

Monday, October 15, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 8, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gateway Coal Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-41

Petitioner

Operating Engineers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flair Builders, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 487 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Operating Engineers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Boys Markets v. Clerks Union

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

768

Petitioner

Boys Markets

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Clerks Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 235 (1970)

Argued

April 21-22, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Boys Markets, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Republic Steel v. Maddox

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Republic Steel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maddox

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 650 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, November 18, 1964

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Republic Steel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Independent Petroleum Workers, America, v. American Oil

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Independent Petroleum Workers, America,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Oil

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 130 (1964)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for American Oil, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Packinghouse Workers v. Needham

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

102

Petitioner

Packinghouse Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Needham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 247 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, February 20, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Packinghouse Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

John Wiley & Sons

Respondent

Livingston

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 543 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, January 9, 1964, Monday, January 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Livingston, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Carey v. Westinghouse Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carey

Respondent

Westinghouse Corp.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 261 (1964)

Argued

December 11-12, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Carey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Humphrey v. Moore

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Humphrey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 18

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 335 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1963

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Humphrey, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Drake Bakeries v. Bakery Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

598

Petitioner

Drake Bakeries

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bakery Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 254 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bakery Workers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

430

Petitioner

Atkinson

Respondent

Sinclair Refining Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 238 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Atkinson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Norris-LaGuardia

None

Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Teamsters Local

Respondent

Lucas Flour Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 95 (1962)

Argued

November 7-8, 1961

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lucas Flour Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

538

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Enterprise Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 593 (1960)

Argued

Thursday, April 28, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Steelworkers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

360

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Mfg. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 564 (1960)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Steelworkers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

443

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warrior & Gulf Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 574 (1960)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Steelworkers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

MLB Players Assn v. Garvey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-1210

Petitioner

MLB Players Assn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Garvey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 504 (2001)

Decided

Monday, May 14, 2001

Facts of the Case

After the Major League Baseball Players Association filed grievances against the Major League Baseball Clubs, arbitrators found that the Clubs had colluded in the market for free-agent services in violation of the industry's collective bargaining agreement. To cover damages, the Association and Clubs entered into an agreement, which provided funds and framework to resolve individual player's claims. Steve Garvey, a first baseman, submitted a claim alleging that the San Diego Padres did not extend his contract to the 1988 and 1989 seasons due to collusion. Under the framework, the Association denied Garvey's claim. Agreeing, the arbitrator determined that Garvey did not receive a contract extension due to collusion and found that Garvey had not shown a specific offer of extension. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's denial of Garvey's motion to vacate the arbitrator's award. The appellate court, under the Labor Management Relations Act, directed the arbitration panel to enter an award for Garvey because it concluded from the arbitration proceedings that an offer was made to Garvey and that it was withdrawn due to collision.

Question

Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the District Court's denial of a baseball player's motion to vacate an arbitration award and in directing the arbitrator to enter judgment in favor of the player, where the arbitrator denied the player's claim?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for MLB Players Assn, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' determination because it conflicted with the Court's cases limiting review of an arbitrator's award entered pursuant to an agreement between an employer and a labor organization and prescribing the appropriate remedy where vacation of the award is warranted. The opinion stated that: "Judicial review of a labor- arbitration decision pursuant to such an agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement." The opinion continued "even 'serious error' on the arbitrator's part does not justify overturning his decision, where, as here, he is construing a contract and acting within the scope of his authority."