Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Employment – RLA — sex discrimination — retaliation

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 14, 2014//

Employment – RLA — sex discrimination — retaliation

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 14, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Employment – RLA — sex discrimination — retaliation

The Railway Labor Act does not preclude claims of sex discrimination and retaliation.

“RLA preclusion, properly applied, does nothing more than keep disputes actually arising under a collective bargaining agreement out of court. Employees may enter into a contract requiring that other types of claim be brought only in arbitration, but if a collective bargaining agreement simply prohibits employers from doing some-thing (for example discriminating on a certain basis) or merely allows arbitration of some type of claim, a claim under an independent law covering the same subject matter is not precluded. See Felt v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 60 F.3d 1416, 1419 (9th Cir. 1995) (Title VII claim of religious discrimination was not precluded simply because the collective bargaining agreement ‘provides for arbitration of claims Nos. 13-1944 & 13-2054 25 of religious discrimination’); see also Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 262–63 (explaining that a wrongful discharge claim based on state law can go forward even if it depends on the same facts as a wrongful discharge claim under a collective bargaining agreement).”

“So Carlson’s claims under Title VII could proceed in federal court even if the collective bargaining agreement prohibited sex discrimination and retaliation. Notably, however, the collective bargaining agreement in this case (as CSX conceded at oral argument) does not prohibit sex discrimination or retaliation, meaning that CSX is making a truly radical argument: that Carlson cannot assert in any forum her right to be free from sex discrimination and retaliation. We can see no reason to apply the RLA in a way that, in addition to having no basis in the text, would lead to that extraordinary result.”

Reversed and Remanded.

13-1944 & 13-2054 Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Hamilton, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests