Fifth Circuit Upholds: UPS Union Members Can Bring Title VII Claims in a Federal Judicial Forum

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred when it concluded that UPS’s CBA required Title VII claims to be brought under the CBA’s grievance process.

Background

In Amber Ibarra v. United Parcel Service, No. 11-50714 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2012), Amber Ibarra worked as a package car driver for the United Parcel Service (“UPS”), but was terminated from her job after she lost control of her van and struck a telephone pole while delivering packages. Ibarra filed a grievance under her union’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), claiming that her termination was unjust. According to Article 51 of the CBA, Ibarra first had a local hearing and her discharge was upheld. She then had an evidentiary hearing before the Southern Regional Area Parcel Grievance Committee which also upheld her termination.

Ibarra then filed a Title VII action alleging sex discrimination with the district court. UPS filed three motions for summary judgment. The second motion argued that UPS was entitled to summary judgment on two grounds, including that the grievance procedure established in the CBA provided Ibarra’s exclusive remedy for her Title VII sex discrimination claim and Ibarra failed to exhaust that remedy by failing to assert sex discrimination by UPS in the grievance process. The district court agreed with UPS and granted summary judgment.

Fifth Circuit

On appeal, Ibarra contended that the district court erred in finding that the CBA explicitly provided that statutory discrimination claims are subject to the grievance process. The Fifth Circuit agreed. The Court applied Supreme Court precedence from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver and 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett.The Court reasoned that in Gardner-Denver, the Supreme Court recognized that employees have separate statutory and contractual rights. However, the Court also acknowledged that Penn Plaza subsequently tailored the suggestion in Gardner-Denver that arbitral procedures are inadequate to address statutory discrimination claims. The Penn Plaza Court held that a CBA that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate certain statutory claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.

The Court then examined the UPS’s CBA to see whether it clearly and unmistakably required union members to submit Title VII claims to the CBA’s grievance process. Reviewing both Article 51 and Article 36 of the CBA, the Court concluded that the CBA contained no express waiver of judicial forum for claims brought pursuant to Title VII. The Court then supported its conclusion by citing precedence from other Supreme Court cases and cases from other Circuit Courts of Appeals. Because the CBA did not clearly and unmistakably waive a union member’s right to bring a Title VII claim in a federal judicial forum, the Court held that the district court erred in concluding that the CBA required Ibarra to submit her Title VII claim under the CBA’s grievance process. The grant of summary judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.