The California Court of Appeal recently held that arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement did not bar a worker’s claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination and sexual harassment. [Camargo v. California Portland Cement Co., 2001 WL 80366.]
Pamela Camargo was a member of the Northern California District Council of Laborers Local Union No. 73 (Union) and was employed by California Portland Cement Company (Employer). The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Employer and Union provided for binding arbitration of “any dispute, difference or grievance” between Employer and a worker. Although the CBA also prohibited Employer from discriminating against workers, it did not cite or refer to any federal or state anti-discrimination statutes.
Camargo filed a grievance with Union, alleging gender discrimination and sexual harassment by Employer. Pursuant to the CBA, the grievance was submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator rejected her grievance. Following the denial, she filed a complaint in state superior court against Employer, alleging gender discrimination and sexual harassment in violation of FEHA. On Employer’s motion, the superior court concluded that the binding arbitration award barred Camargo from asserting a FEHA claim. The superior court’s decision was based on the legal doctrine of “collateral estoppel.” Under this doctrine, if an issue is decided in prior litigation, a party may not litigate that issue again in a subsequent lawsuit on a different cause of action. Camargo appealed the superior court’s decision.
The California Court of Appeal disagreed with the superior court and held that collateral estoppel does not apply in this case. When Camargo submitted her grievance to arbitration, she sought resolution of her contractual right under the CBA. On the other hand, when she filed a lawsuit under the FEHA, she was asserting an independent statutory right. Therefore, because the issues are different, collateral estoppel does not apply.
However, the Court of Appeal did caution that, under the right circumstances, an arbitration award under a CBA that addresses a FEHA claim may be given collateral estoppel effect. If the FEHA claims of a union member are to be finally resolved by arbitration, two conditions must be met, which were not met in the present case:
Although the Court of Appeal found that the arbitration award does not bar Camargo’s FEHA claim, it did note that the superior court could give some weight to the award. The amount of weight to give the arbitration award depends on the degree of fairness in the arbitration procedure, the special competence of the arbitrator to deal with FEHA claims, and the existence of an arbitration record showing that the arbitrator fully considered the FEHA claim.