HARRELL v. KELLOGG COMPANY, 2:11-cv-07361

Harrell is African-American and formerly employed by Kellogg at its Philadelphia warehouse for about five years (hired 2006).
In 2010 Harrell injured his knee; Kellogg allegedly imposed or maintained work restrictions inconsistent with his medical needs and race.
Harrell was allegedly moved to dangerous light-duty tasks and near hazards, and isolated from management after his injury.
In May 2010 Harrell filed a Title VII discrimination complaint with the EEOC; Kellogg terminated him in June 2010 while allowing a less senior Caucasian employee to perform light-duty work.
The 2007 Collective-Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governs arbitration of grievances, contains a nondiscrimination clause, but does not expressly reference §1981 claims; Kellogg moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court publishes a memorandum denying Kellogg’s motion to dismiss on multiple grounds and notes issues may be revisited with discovery (including potential effects of a workers’ compensation settlement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the CBA explicitly compel arbitration of §1981 claims?	CBA lacks explicit waiver; §1981 claims aren’t grievances.	Nondiscrimination clause and broad grievance clause imply arbitration of discrimination claims.	No explicit waiver; arbitration not compelled at this stage.
Do Harrell's §1981 claims require interpretation of the CBA, thus arbitration?	Claims are statutory, not contract interpretation.	Articles on Transitional Duty Program may require interpretation.	Claims do not clearly require CBA interpretation; denial, with reservation for later raising.
Has Harrell waived §1981 claims via workers’ compensation settlement?	Settlement releases only WC claims, not §1981 claims.	Settlement could bar related claims.	Waiver issue not resolved at motion to dismiss; denial of dismissal on this basis.

Wright v. Universal Mar. Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (clear and unmistakable waiver required for arbitration of statutory claims)
Gardner-Denver Co. v. Burris, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (broad arbitration clauses do not automatically preclude statutory claims)
Pyett v. Cement Masons, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (explicit waiver required to arbitrate statutory antidiscrimination claims)
Matthews v. Denver Newspaper Agency LLP, 649 F.3d 1199 (2011) (CTBAs with only contractual rights may not bar statutory claims)
Bratten v. SSI Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 625 (1999) (general arbitration + nondiscrimination provisions may lack explicit waiver)
Carson v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F.3d 325 (1999) (nondiscrimination clause without explicit statute reference may be insufficient)
Quint v. A.E. Stanley Mfg. Co., 172 F.3d 1 (1999) (absence of explicit federal statute reference limits waiver)
In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (1997) (court may consider documents integral to complaint)