Floyd Savant v. APM Terminals
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24695
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Savant (born 1934) worked as a yard-tractor/PIT operator for Universal Maritime under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) administered by West Gulf and the ILA Local No. 24.
- After a 2009 accident, OSHA-required PIT refresher evaluations were imposed; Savant allegedly failed three evaluations and was barred from operating PITs but continued working in other classifications at the same pay rate.
- An MOU supplementing the CBA stated that any alleged violation of employment laws ("such as the ADEA") would be resolved solely by the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures and would be the worker’s sole remedy.
- Savant sued in federal court alleging age discrimination under the ADEA instead of pursuing the CBA/MOU grievance/arbitration process.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding Savant lacked standing to sue because he failed to exhaust the CBA/MOU grievance and arbitration remedies; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Savant must exhaust CBA/MOU grievance/arbitration before filing ADEA suit | Savant argued the MOU was voluntary/not binding on his union/local, so it did not bar district-court suit | Universal Maritime argued the MOU (together with the CBA) clearly and unmistakably waived access to a judicial forum for statutory claims | Held: The MOU clearly and unmistakably required arbitration of statutory claims and bound Savant’s union/local; failure to exhaust deprived Savant of standing to litigate in federal court |
| Whether the CBA alone waived judicial forum for statutory claims | Savant: CBA does not explicitly identify ADEA/statutory claims, so no clear waiver | Employer: CBA plus MOU should be read together to effect waiver | Held: CBA alone was not clear and unmistakable; MOU satisfied the clarity requirement when read with the CBA |
| Whether an unsigned/unsigned-by-local MOU can bind the employee | Savant: West Gulf and the Union never signed the MOU; local rejected it (or not bound) | Employer: Conduct and admissions show parties intended to be bound; union-authorized agreement can bind members absent a contrary bylaw | Held: Evidence (deposition admissions, longstanding application, union communications, grievance history) showed intent to be bound; signature not required |
| Whether precedent requiring "clear and unmistakable" waiver applies to an MOU ancillary to a CBA | Savant: implied that rule should not apply to this MOU | Employer: Penn Plaza/Ibarra principles apply to any binding agreement between union and employer | Held: The Penn Plaza/Ibarra clear-and-unmistakable test applies to an MOU binding the union and employer; MOU met the standard |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (employees ordinarily must exhaust CBA grievance/arbitration before suing under federal law)
- 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (a CBA can validly require arbitration of statutory discrimination claims if it is clear and unmistakable)
- Ibarra v. United Parcel Service, 695 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (CBA must identify statutes or explicitly refer to statutory claims to show clear and unmistakable waiver)
- Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment affirmed)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Champion Int’l Corp., 908 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir.) (labor agreements construed together; more expansive implication allowed in labor contracts)
- Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc., 532 F.3d 365 (5th Cir.) (federal law governs CBA interpretation; state rules may supplement if consistent with labor policy)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard on genuine dispute of material fact)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (courts view facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to nonmoving party)