NCJ Number
94853
Journal
Monthly Labor Review Volume: 106 Dated: (October 1983) Pages: 3-10
Date Published
1983
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The status of discrimination grievance arbitration in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. is examined.
Abstract
Alexander filed a grievance alleging that he had been discharged from the Gardner-Denver Co. without just cause; he also filed a discrimination charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) arbitrator found that Alexander had been dismissed for just cause, but made no decision in regard to the racial discrimination charge. EEOC advised Alexander of his right to institute civil action in Federal court; however, the district court ruled that, having submitted his claim to arbitration, Alexander was precluded from relitigating the same in court. Alexander appealed his case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reaffirmed the lower court's decision. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the lower court's order, holding that Alexander was not precluded from being awarded a trial de novo under Title VII. Questionnaires completed by 659 attorneys reveal that the majority disagreed with the Court's decision. Furthermore, the surveyed attorneys exhibited more support for procedural changes, which tend to legitimize the results of the arbitral hearing, than for substantive changes, such as the application of external Title VII law by the arbitrator or third-party intervention by the grievant. Numerous references are provided.