Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—D.C. Cir.: Grievance settlement did not bar employee from pursuing Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, (Sep 8, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The plain language of the settlement agreement was addressed specifically to settlement of the union’s grievance claims for breach of the CBA, and it did not purport to treat with the employee’s then-pending lawsuit alleging a violation of Title VII.

The D.C. Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer against an employee’s Title VII claims on the basis that a grievance settlement negotiated by her union barred her suit. This dispute concerns the proper reading of an agreement settling claims brought by a union against an employer on behalf of the employee under a union grievance procedure provided by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The appeals court held that the agreement resolved only the union grievance claims under the CBA and did not purport to affect the employee’s Title VII action. Accordingly, the appeals court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer and remanded for further proceedings (Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 23-7157 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 5, 2025)).

Union grievances. In 2006, the employee began working for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). She was a member of the union, and her employment was covered by a collective bargaining agreement, which included a grievance process.

In 2020 and 2021, the union brought two grievances on her behalf. The first grievance charged the employer with unsatisfactory and improper performance evaluations of the employee. A second grievance charged the employer with “bullying” by her supervisor.

In July 2021, as the union grievance process went forward on those two charges, the employee filed a lawsuit against the employer bringing claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She alleged discrimination based on her race, hostile work environment, and retaliation for engagement in protected EEO activity. Her suit alleged that her supervisor subjected her to discrimination and harassment based on her race and to retaliation for raising complaints about her treatment. Several of the allegations in her lawsuit involved the same conduct the union alleged breached the CBA in the two grievances.

Settlement agreement. On December 2, 2021, the union reached a settlement agreement with the employer in the union grievance process. The following day, the employer sent a two-page memorandum to the employee, attaching the agreement.

In January 2023, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment in this case, contending that the settlement with the union in the union grievance process foreclosed the employee’s lawsuit.

The district court agreed. It held that the employee’s action was “barred by the settlement agreement” and that “the Court need not address the merits of the plaintiff’s Title VII claims.”

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit rejected the employer’s argument that the employee’s Title VII claim was included within the scope of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement cannot be read to cover the employee’s Title VII claims.

Language of agreement. The plain language of the settlement agreement was addressed specifically to settlement of the union’s grievance claims for breach of the CBA, and it did not purport to treat with the employee’s then-pending lawsuit alleging a violation of Title VII. The appeals court pointed out that the two types of claims are fundamentally distinct: “a grievance is designed to vindicate a contractual right under a CBA, while a lawsuit under Title VII asserts independent statutory rights accorded by Congress.”

The key language of the settlement agreement stated that it was entered into by the parties to address the issues raised in the union’s grievances. At every turn, the terms of the agreement were directed to the union’s grievances and not to the employee’s Title VII suit.

Because the settlement agreement resolved grievances between the employer and the union under the CBA, there was no reason to suppose it would pertain to a different action (under Title VII) pending in a different forum filed by a different party (the employee).

The fact that the union brought the grievances on behalf of the employee did not make her a consenting party to the agreement between the union and the employer. And just as the employee was not a listed party to the settlement agreement with the employer, the union was not a party to the Title VII action against the employer.

Overlapping claims. Further, the appeals court rejected the employer’s contention that the settlement’s language suggested resolution of all claims somehow connected to those specific grievances, even encompassing claims in a lawsuit that reference some of the same underlying facts alleged in the grievances. While the underlying conduct giving rise to the claims overlapped, the grievances allege that the conduct works a breach of contract (the CBA) without once mentioning that it constitutes discrimination based on race. There was no indication that the parties contemplated that the employee would withdraw her pending Title VII action.

Finally, the specific context of a potential waiver of Title VII rights further counseled against reading the settlement agreement to reach beyond the union’s breach of contract claims. Insofar as a union could waive an employee’s pending substantive claim of employment discrimination in a judicial forum, the waiver would have to be at least as clear. The settlement agreement in this case did not approach such a standard.

The case is No. 23-7157.

Judge: Srinivasan, S.

Attorneys: Donna Williams Rucker (Tully Rinckey) for Catherine Jones. Michael K. Guss, Office of General Counsel, for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

Cases: Labor Arbitration ContractClaims Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation DistrictofColumbiaNews