SCOTUS Briefs

2008 Supreme Court term

PENN PLAZA LLC, ET AL. v. STEVEN PYETT, ET AL.

Dockets 07-581Argued
Argued
December 1, 2008
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Paul Salvatore, petitioners argue that the Second Circuit erred in imposing a blanket ban on collectively bargained forum‑selection clauses for arbitration of ADEA claims.

According to Paul Salvatore, petitioners contend that Congress, through the NLRA, the Federal Arbitration Act, and Section 301, intended to empower unions to bargain over dispute‑resolution methods, including arbitration of statutory claims.

According to Paul Salvatore, petitioners assert that the Second Circuit misapplied Alexander v. Gardner‑Denver, a case about claim preclusion, to the issue of enforcing an arbitration agreement for statutory claims.

Petitioners maintain that the collective‑bargaining agreement at issue gives the union exclusive control over grievance arbitration, leaving no avenue for individual employees to pursue arbitration independently.

According to David C. Frederick, respondents argue that the Second Circuit’s judgment should be affirmed because a collective‑bargaining agreement gives the union exclusive control over grievances, unions have inherent conflicts of interest regarding individual anti‑discrimination rights, and unions lack authority to serve as gatekeepers of employees’ substantive ADEA rights.

Background and question before the Court

According to Petitioners, the dispute centers on whether a collective‑bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause precludes individual employees from bringing Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims in court.

Justice Souter asked whether the union’s arbitration right also includes the right to assert any claim and what the employee’s answer is.

According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired where the contract addresses the individual’s right to succeed under the union‑employer arrangement.

Justice Souter questioned the source of the language that the union may “turn over” the claim to the employee.

Justice Souter asked where the guarantee is that if the union declines, the employee has the right either to arbitrate or to sue.

Justice Ginsburg asked who would pay for arbitration if the union declines to arbitrate.

What each side argues

Petitioner (PENN PLAZA LLC)

According to Paul Salvatore, petitioner argues that the Second Circuit ignored the NLRA’s grant of bargaining authority over dispute‑resolution methods, which includes arbitration of ADEA claims.

According to Paul Salvatore, petitioner asserts that Congress’s strong endorsement of workplace arbitration in the Federal Arbitration Act and Section 301 supports union arbitration of statutory claims.

According to Paul Salvatore, petitioner claims the Second Circuit erroneously relied on Alexander v. Gardner‑Denver, a case about claim preclusion, which is unrelated to enforcing an arbitration agreement for statutory claims.

Petitioner states that the collective‑bargaining agreement gives the union exclusive control over grievance arbitration, leaving no individual arbitration option.

According to Petitioners, petitioner raises the issue that the union controls the arbitration and provides no opportunity for individual arbitration under the collective‑bargaining agreement.

Respondent (STEVEN PYETT)

According to David C. Frederick, respondent argues that the Second Circuit’s judgment should be affirmed because the collective‑bargaining agreement gives the union exclusive control over workers’ grievances.

According to David C. Frederick, respondent contends that unions have inherent conflicts of interest with respect to individual statutory anti‑discrimination rights.

According to David C. Frederick, respondent maintains that unions lack authority to serve as gatekeepers of employees’ substantive ADEA rights.

What happened at oral argument

Justice Souter asked whether the union’s arbitration right also includes the right to assert any claim, and what the employee’s answer is.

According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired where the contract addresses the individual’s right to succeed under the union‑employer arrangement.

Justice Souter questioned the source of the language that the union may “turn over” the claim to the employee.

Justice Souter asked where the guarantee is that if the union declines, the employee has the right either to arbitrate or to sue.

Justice Ginsburg asked who would pay for arbitration if the union declines to arbitrate.

Justice Souter asked whether employees could proceed on their own if the union does not turn over the claim.

Justice Scalia noted that the petitioners raised the issue but did not claim that it guarantees a win.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

According to United States (amicus), according to United States (amicus), the case concerns whether employees can be forced to rely on union arbitration for ADEA claims, affecting their ability to enforce anti‑discrimination rights.

According to United States (amicus), according to United States (amicus), the outcome could determine if individual statutory rights can be waived in collective‑bargaining agreements, influencing future labor and discrimination law.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • f54ed1f61d1ee36518a5-r1-f775f4efe490821c.pdforal argument transcript
    Archived copy

Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.