Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Gardner-Denver: A Union Grievance Arbitration Did Not Bar a Title VII Action

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 18, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974).

Losing a union grievance is not always the same as losing a statutory discrimination claim. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), addressed arbitration of a contractual claim and a later Title VII action. The earlier award could be evidence without automatically deciding the statutory case. But today the agreement’s actual scope matters: Later authority also addresses collective agreements that expressly require arbitration of statutory claims. Do not stop at whether a union was involved.

The two proceedings protected different rights

The Court distinguished enforcement of a collective-bargaining agreement from enforcement of Title VII’s independent statutory right. The later lawsuit was not simply an appeal asking a court to reinterpret the labor arbitrator’s award. That distinction explains the holding; it does not establish that every employee can litigate a statutory claim despite an enforceable agreement to arbitrate that very claim. Gardner-Denver, at 49–54, 59–60.

The union controlled the contractual grievance

The Court considered the union’s control over how a grievance was presented and the possibility that collective and individual interests could diverge. Preserve what was actually submitted to arbitration, who presented it and what the arbitrator decided. A generic statement that the worker already had a hearing does not establish that the statutory question was properly decided there. Gardner-Denver, at 52–54, 58 n.19.

The arbitration result could still be evidence

The Court did not require the later court to ignore the award. Its footnote 21 identifies factors bearing on evidentiary weight: Whether the agreement’s protections substantially matched Title VII, procedural fairness, adequacy of the discrimination record and the arbitrator’s particular competence. It adopted no fixed weight. A factual determination fully considered on an adequate record could receive great weight, while a bare award without the relevant record might answer less. Gardner-Denver, at 60 n.21.

Current arbitration analysis requires later authority

Later law is not limited to individually signed agreements. In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 258–260, 265–267 (2009), the Court enforced a collective agreement clearly and unmistakably requiring arbitration of the ADEA claims at issue and rejected broad antiarbitration reasoning from Gardner-Denver. Distinguish a contractual grievance from an express statutory-claim arbitration clause, then review the present agreement and applicable law. Neither case supplies a blanket answer for every arbitration provision.

Key takeaways

• Identify whether the arbitration arose from a union contract or an individual agreement.
• Separate contractual theories from statutory discrimination claims.
• Preserve the grievance record, award, and evidence presented.
• Apply later arbitration precedent to the agreement actually at issue.