Martin v. Dana Corp.
(3rd Cir 6/12/97)
(3rd Cir 7/1/97)

     The Third Circuit has decided to hear this case en banc, and
     has vacated the opinion dated 6/12/97.

     Following is our earlier summary of the 6/12/97 opinion which
     has been vacated:
     ..............................................................

     Employee sued his employer in federal district court claiming
     violation of Title VII and 42 USC 1981.  The district court
     granted the employer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with
     prejudice on the ground that the employee had failed to
     arbitrate his claim under the collective bargaining agreement,
     which provided:

          "Any and all claims regarding equal employment
          opportunity provided for under this Agreement or under
          any federal, state or local fair employment practice law
          shall be exclusively addressed by an individual employee
          or the Union under the grievance and arbitration
          provisions of this Agreement."

     The 3rd circuit affirmed 2:1, emphasizing that (1) the
     arbitration clause allows the employee to compel arbitration,
     so there is no concern about the union's and the employee's
     interests being different; (2) the arbitration clause
     explicitly provides for mandatory arbitration of statutory
     discrimination claims.  These two facts make this case unique.

     Recognizing a tension between Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson
     Lane (US S Ct 1991) and Alexander v. Gardner-Denver (US S Ct
     1971), the court emphasized Section 118 of the Civil Rights
     Act of 1991:

          "Where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law,
          the use of alternative means of dispute resolution,
          including . . . arbitration, is encouraged to resolve
          disputes arising under the Acts or provisions of Federal
          law amended by this title."

     The dissent rejects the idea that Section 118 "permits a
     collective bargaining unit to prospectively waive an
     individual member's rights to select a federal judicial
     forum."

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
           "Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution"
       Willamette University Center for Dispute Resolution
       Willamette University College of Law, Salem, Oregon
       Ross Runkel, Editor         Richard Birke, Director
       rrunkel@willamette.edu        rbirke@willamette.edu
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .