## Facts

- Harrell Alexander, a Black employee of Gardner-Denver Company and union member, was discharged in 1969 for allegedly unsatisfactory work.
- A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governed discipline and discharge, contained a nondiscrimination clause, and required a multi-step grievance process ending in final and binding arbitration.
- Alexander filed a grievance contesting his discharge and asserted during the grievance process that the discharge was racially motivated and violated the CBA.
- Before the arbitration hearing, Alexander filed a race-discrimination charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which referred the matter to the EEOC.
- An arbitrator ruled the discharge was “for cause” under the CBA.
- The EEOC issued a “no reasonable cause” determination.
- Alexander filed a federal Title VII action alleging he was discharged due to racially discriminatory employment practices.

## Issues

1. Whether submission of a discrimination-related grievance to final and binding CBA arbitration precludes an employee from later bringing a Title VII action in federal court.
2. Whether participation in contractual arbitration constitutes a waiver of an employee’s statutory rights under Title VII.
3. What effect, if any, an arbitral award should have in subsequent Title VII litigation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment for the employer and remanded.
- The Court held that an employee’s statutory right to a trial de novo under Title VII is not foreclosed by prior submission of the dispute to CBA arbitration.
- The Court rejected an “election of remedies” bar because Title VII rights are independent of contractual rights under a CBA.
- The Court held that pursuing arbitration does not waive Title VII rights, which cannot be prospectively waived through collective bargaining.
- The Court stated that an arbitral award may be admitted as evidence in a later Title VII case, but it is not controlling and does not displace de novo judicial factfinding.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory rights under Title VII are distinct from, and not merged into, contractual rights created by a collective bargaining agreement.
- Title VII was intended to supplement other remedies; use of contractual grievance-arbitration procedures does not extinguish a Title VII cause of action.
- The election-of-remedies doctrine does not apply where the asserted rights arise from separate sources (contract versus statute), even if based on the same events.
- Title VII rights are individual and public in character and may not be prospectively waived through the collective bargaining process.
- Labor arbitration primarily resolves contractual disputes and is not a substitute for judicial enforcement of Title VII; arbitral findings may be considered but are not preclusive.

## Conclusion

The Court held that prior final and binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement does not bar an employee from pursuing a Title VII discrimination claim in federal court, and that any arbitral award is, at most, evidentiary rather than dispositive in the later de novo proceeding.


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