Sandra Gilbert v. Patrick Donahoe
751 F.3d 303
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Sandra Kay Gilbert, a USPS employee and union member, alleged age/disability discrimination, sought FMLA paid leave twice, and filed EEO complaints and internal grievances under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The Union pursued the CBA’s grievance/arbitration procedure on Gilbert’s behalf; she also filed suit in federal court alleging FMLA interference and later added Rehabilitation Act claims.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1), finding the CBA’s grievance/arbitration provisions were mandatory and "clear and unmistakable" such that statutory claims (FMLA and Rehabilitation Act) had to be arbitrated.
- Gilbert retired after dismissal and appealed; the Postmaster General abandoned the district court’s arbitration rationale on appeal but urged other grounds for affirmance (jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, lack of standing for injunctive relief).
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and held: Rehabilitation Act claims must be arbitrated; FMLA claims are not clearly and unmistakably subject to arbitration and thus remain in federal court for damages (but injunctive relief is moot due to Gilbert’s retirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CBA clearly and unmistakably requires arbitration of FMLA claims | Gilbert: CBA/ELM references FMLA; claims belong in federal court | Donahoe: CBA/ELM incorporates FMLA and mandates exclusive grievance/arbitration | Held: References to FMLA via ELM are not incorporation; FMLA claims may proceed in federal court (jurisdiction exists for damages) |
| Whether the CBA clearly and unmistakably requires arbitration of Rehabilitation Act claims | Gilbert: Rehabilitation Act claims not subject to arbitration under CBA | Donahoe: CBA explicitly incorporates Rehabilitation Act prohibitions and thus sends those claims to arbitration | Held: CBA §2.01(B) expressly incorporates Rehabilitation Act protections; those claims must be pursued through grievance/arbitration |
| Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over FMLA claims (including standing) | Gilbert: Alleged interference and retaliation under FMLA; suffered concrete injuries; seeks damages and injunctive relief | Donahoe: Argues no federal question (FMLA doesn’t provide paid leave), no injury, damages offset by retirement, and injunctive relief moot after retirement | Held: Federal-question jurisdiction exists; injuries are concrete and redressable for damages; injunctive relief lacks standing after retirement |
| Whether appeal should be affirmed on other grounds (failure to state claim / summary judgment) | Gilbert: merits unadjudicated; district court didn’t decide failure-to-state or summary judgment | Donahoe: Urges affirmance on merits or summary judgment | Held: Court declines to address merits or summary-judgment arguments; remands for further proceedings on FMLA damages claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (CBA may bar judicial statutory claims if it "clearly and unmistakably" requires arbitration)
- Gardner-Denver Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (general grievance clauses insufficient to waive judicial forum for statutory claims)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) (broad dispute-resolution language does not necessarily waive statutory claims)
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (general arbitration clauses and absence of explicit statutory incorporation leave access to courts intact)
- Ibarra v. United Parcel Serv., 695 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2012) (CBA must identify specific statutes or explicitly refer to statutory claims to clearly and unmistakably require arbitration)