From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
14 Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett
United States Supreme Court
556 U.S. 247 (2009)
The plaintiffs worked as night lobby attendants for 14 Penn Plaza LLC (Penn) (defendant), a New York City office building. The plaintiffs were members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), then the exclusive bargaining representative on behalf of New York City building-services employees. Under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), SEIU had sole discretion to negotiate with members’ employers regarding the terms and conditions of employment. SEIU signed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on the plaintiffs’ behalf that included a mandatory arbitration clause for certain employment discrimination claims. In August 2003, after obtaining SEIU’s consent, Penn contracted with a security-services provider to hire security guards for its building’s lobby and entrances. As a result, the plaintiffs were no longer needed as lobby staff. Penn reassigned them to different jobs. According to the plaintiffs, the reassignments resulted in lower wages, were less desirable, and caused emotional distress. SEIU filed grievance charges on the plaintiffs’ behalf, alleging that the plaintiffs were reassigned because of their age. When the grievance process proved unsuccessful, SEIU requested arbitration under its collective bargaining agreement with Penn. During arbitration proceedings, SEIU withdrew the age-discrimination claim from arbitration, based on its belief that the claim was unfounded. SEIU proceeded with arbitration on other claims, but the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging unlawful age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Penn sought to enforce the CBA’s mandatory arbitration clause. The district court denied Penn’s motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Penn sought review by the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Souter, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.