Reynalda Weeks v. 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC d/b/a Greenville Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation, 85 A.3d 1147

Background

Weeks, a former employee, sued her employer (735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC) in Superior Court alleging race-based hostile work environment and constructive discharge under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA).
Employer moved to stay the Superior Court action and compel arbitration under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA); Weeks conceded she was a union member covered by the CBA until her alleged constructive discharge.
The Superior Court granted the stay and ordered binding arbitration; Weeks appealed that interlocutory order to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
The central legal dispute was whether the CBA’s arbitration/grievance provisions constituted a “clear and unmistakable” waiver of Weeks’s statutory right to a judicial forum for RICRA/FEPA claims.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the interlocutory order was appealable and then addressed arbitrability de novo, focusing on CBA language, state public-policy considerations, and federal precedent on waiver of statutory forum rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of interlocutory stay/order to arbitrate	Weeks proceeded by direct appeal and contended review was proper	Employer argued interlocutory orders are not appealable as of right and appeal should be dismissed	Court allowed appeal under McAuslan/Boranian exceptions because orders compelling arbitration carry finality requiring prompt review
Standard of review for arbitrability	Implicitly urged de novo review of arbitrability	Employer suggested deferential/abuse-of-discretion for interlocutory order	Court applied de novo review: whether parties agreed to arbitrate is a question of law
Whether CBA waived Weeks’s state statutory right to a judicial forum (RICRA/FEPA)	Weeks: CBA contains only general no-discrimination and grievance language and does not clearly waive judicial forum; Gardner-Denver and Wright protect statutory forum absent clear waiver	Employer: CBA and CBA grievance/arbitration procedures govern employment disputes and require arbitration	Held for Weeks: waiver of state statutory judicial forum must be "clear and unmistakable;" the CBA’s general anti-discrimination/grievance language was not sufficiently specific to constitute such a waiver
Whether general arbitration clause or grievance-only scope compels arbitration of statutory claims	Weeks: general/grievance-limited language confines arbitrator to CBA disputes and does not incorporate RICRA/FEPA	Employer: CBA grievance/arbitration provisions apply to discrimination covered by CBA and thus control	Court: general grievance/arbitration language that omits specific reference to RICRA/FEPA is insufficient to show clear and unmistakable waiver; arbitration cannot be compelled on this basis

Key Cases Cited

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (collective-bargaining agreement that expressly covers statutory discrimination claims may clearly waive judicial forum)
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (arbitration of contractual grievance does not necessarily foreclose statutory Title VII claim)
Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (waiver of judicial forum for statutory claims by CBA must be clear and unmistakable)
Cipolla v. Rhode Island College, 742 A.2d 277 (R.I. 1999) (distinguishing federal statutory claims from state-law CBA disputes; elective remedy doctrine applies where appropriate)
Boranian v. Richer, 983 A.2d 834 (R.I. 2009) (orders compelling arbitration have an element of finality permitting interlocutory appeal)
State Department of Corrections v. Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, 866 A.2d 1241 (R.I. 2005) (arbitrability is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Forte Brothers, Inc. v. State Department of Transportation, 541 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1988) (orders compelling arbitration may warrant immediate appellate review)