%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
127.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 20 Tf 85 Tz
-124.106 -29.8 Td
2 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
75.476 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-78.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(J) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSE) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESAR) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASILIS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LASIC) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARLOS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORRAYO) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARIO) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ODAS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
75.9165 -12.5 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
6.771 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
-82.6875 -18 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LASKA) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORPORATION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
70.201 -12.5 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
161.1327 0 Td
(No. 06-1461) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-49.7137 -1.4 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -16.6 Td
173 0 Td
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-173 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWYERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(' C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMMITTEE FOR) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IGHTS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDER) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETROPOLITAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASHINGTON) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(MPLOYMENT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWYERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; W) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASHINGTON) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWYERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(') Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMMITTEE) Tj
2.02 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(FOR) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IGHTS) Tj
2.02 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(U) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RBAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(FFAIRS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
35.831 -12.5 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellants.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
145.789 -8.6 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-126.3923 -25.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
6.394 -12.4 Td
(for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.) Tj
7.3045 -12.4 Td
(William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.) Tj
41.019 -12.5 Td
(\(l:04-cv-04022-WDQ\)) Tj
-6.5955 -25.4 Td
(Argued: March 13, 2007) Tj
5.428 -24.9 Td
(Decided: May 3, 2007) Tj
-72.6975 -25.4 Td
(Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and) Tj
.6975 -12.5 Td
(T. S. ELLIS, III, Senior United States District Judge) Tj
-11.5015 -12.5 Td
(for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(by) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(designation.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -73.75 m 183.8 -73.75 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -191 m 186.6 -81.6 l s
.5 w 0 -222.95 m 173 -222.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -317.4 m 186.6 -208 l s
.9 w 0 -324.35 m 183.3 -324.35 l s
.5 w 0 -512.75 m 324 -512.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
5008
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.16 Tw
0 Tc
(Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opin-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.11 Tw
(ion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Judge Ellis joined. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
134.2045 -44.3 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-134.2045 -25.9 Td
.38 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Eric Kenneth Bachman, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.78 Tw
(PANTAZIS, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Harvey) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.97 Tw
(Alan Levin, THOMPSON & COBURN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(for Appellees. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Ann C. Robertson, WIGGINS, CHILDS,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.87 Tw
(QUINN & PANTAZIS, P.L.L.C., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appel-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.1 Tw
(lants. Richard T. Seymour, Washington, D.C.; S. Micah Salb, LIPP-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.28 Tw
(MAN, SEMSKER & SALB, L.L.C., Bethesda, Maryland; Michael) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.35 Tw
(Foreman, Sarah Crawford, Monica Saxena, LAWYERS' COMMIT-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.72 Tw
(TEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, Washington, D.C.; Susan) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.61 Tw
(E. Huhta, Carolyn P. Weiss, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COM-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.01 Tw
(MITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washing-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ton, D.C., for Amici Supporting Appellants.) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
136.7632 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-136.7632 -25.9 Td
(WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.94 Tw
(Plaintiffs brought claims against their employer, Chugach Support) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.77 Tw
(Services, Inc., and its parent company, Chugach Alaska Corporation,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
(under 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.77 Tw
(1981 \(2000\), which prohibits racial discrimination) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.25 Tw
(in the making and enforcement of contracts, and Title VII of the Civil) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.33 Tw
(Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.33 Tw
(2000e-2000e-17 \(2000\), which pro-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.32 Tw
(hibits, among other things, employment discrimination based upon) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.07 Tw
(race and national origin. The district court granted summary judgment) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.5 Tw
(to the defendants on the claims of one plaintiff because it held that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.54 Tw
(Alaska Native Corporations and their subsidiaries were not subject to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.07 Tw
(suit under either of the federal anti-discrimination laws. It dismissed) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.95 Tw
(the claims of two other plaintiffs because a collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.18 Tw
(agreement required that the claims be addressed through binding arbi-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(tration. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -58.85 m 324 -58.85 l s
.5 w 0 -268.75 m 324 -268.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
3420
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(We reinstate the claims of the first plaintiff because the exemption) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
2.05 Tw
(for Alaska Native Corporations from suit under Title VII does not) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(immunize the defendants from suit under the separate and indepen-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.2 Tw
(dent cause of action established by Section 1981. However, we affirm) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.72 Tw
(the dismissal of the union members' claims, because any duty to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.96 Tw
(explain the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.4 Tw
(employees with limited English skills belongs principally with the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(union which represents them.) Tj
158.6477 -25.2 Td
(I.) Tj
-146.6477 -25.3 Td
4.06 Tw
(The plaintiffs, carpenters Jose Aleman and Cesar Basilis and) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.3 Tw
(finance manager James Blasic, were employed by defendant Chugach) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.2 Tw
(Support Services, Inc. \("CSS"\) on construction projects that CSS con-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(tracted to perform for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.06 Tw
(vices at the National Institutes of Health \("NIH"\) campus in Bethesda,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
0 Tw
(Maryland.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( CSS performs general contractor services, typically for the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.57 Tw
(federal government, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.84 Tw
(Chugach Alaska Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation owned) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(by Native Alaskans and their devisees. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(Alaska Native Corporations play special roles in controlling lands) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.85 Tw
(and funds for Alaskan Natives, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Alaska Native Claims Settlement) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(Act, Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 \(1971\) \(codified as amended) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.06 Tw
(at 43 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.06 Tw
(1601-1629a \(2000\)\), but Chugach Alaska Corporation) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(also operates as a traditional business, employing about 5,000 people) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.5 Tw
(in construction, environmental services, information technology, tele-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.25 Tw
(communications, and other areas. The defendants have not alleged) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.7 Tw
(that the plaintiffs' work touched in any way on the internal affairs or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(special functions of the Alaska Native Corporation. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(Plaintiff Jose Aleman, who is Hispanic, performed carpentry and) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.87 Tw
(other tasks at the NIH site from March 10, 2003 until he was dis-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(missed on September 9, 2003. Plaintiff Cesar Basilis, who is also His-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(panic, worked at the NIH site from February 11, 2003, until he was) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.43 Tw
(dismissed on October 17, 2003. Plaintiff James Blasic, who describes) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -25.8 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.41 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.39 Tw
(Two other former employees, Carlos Borrayo and Mario Rodas, were) Tj
-10.5 -11.4 Td
.04 Tw
(also plaintiffs in the suit when it was filed, but have since voluntarily dis-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(missed their claims with prejudice. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.05 m 324 -455.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
4019
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.35 Tw
0 Tc
(himself as Caucasian and does not claim Hispanic ancestry, worked) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(for CSS from December 2, 2002 until he was dismissed on October) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(22, 2003. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
2.54 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis were required to join the Washington D.C.) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(Regional Council of Carpenters as a condition of their employment,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.07 Tw
(and became members on August 15, 2003. The union's collective bar-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(gaining agreement states that it covers the period from May 1, 2001) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.58 Tw
(until April 30, 2004 a period that includes all of Aleman and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.07 Tw
(Basilis' time as CSS employees. It includes mandatory dispute resolu-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.7 Tw
(tion procedures, including procedures for binding arbitration, with) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.34 Tw
(respect to any "grievance" between an employer and an employee) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(represented by the union. It further states, ) Tj
22 -25.2 Td
2.17 Tw
(The parties expressly agree that a grievance shall include) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.39 Tw
(any claim by an employee that he has been subjected to dis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.56 Tw
(crimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.25 Tw
(as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.17 Tw
(the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or all other federal,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(state, and local anti-discrimination laws. ) Tj
-22 -25.2 Td
.7 Tw
(Blasic was not a union member, evidently because as a finance man-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(ager rather than a carpenter he was not required to join the union as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(a condition of employment. He was therefore not covered by the col-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(lective bargaining agreement's dispute resolution provisions.) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
2.54 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis have apparently not sought to resolve their) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.83 Tw
(grievances through the procedures set forth in the collective bargain-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ing agreement, but they allege that they should not be bound by the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.29 Tw
(procedures because they were not provided with a translation of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(collective bargaining agreement or its dispute resolution provisions) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.88 Tw
(into their native Spanish. Each stated in declarations made as part of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.86 Tw
(this litigation that his ability to speak and write English is limited.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.15 Tw
(Neither plaintiff claimed, however, that he did not or could not under-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(stand the arbitration provision in English. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.97 Tw
(Plaintiffs filed suit on December 27, 2004, claiming unlawful dis-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(crimination under Title VII and Section 1981 as well as Maryland) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.34 Tw
(law. Aleman and Basilis allege, in particular, that CSS terminated) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.7 Tw
(them on the basis of race. They also allege that when they were) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
3669
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
(employed by CSS, they were paid less than non-Hispanic employees) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.61 Tw
(and were subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminatory) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.92 Tw
(terms and conditions of employment, including anti-Hispanic state-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.96 Tw
(ments by managers and employees, segregated eating areas, and dis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.73 Tw
(parate disciplinary treatment. They further allege that an "English) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.9 Tw
(Only" rule at their workplace constituted unlawful discrimination.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.26 Tw
(The two union members later filed a motion to amend their complaint) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.15 Tw
(in order to add their union as a defendant, asserting that the union dis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.88 Tw
(criminated against them under the same anti-discrimination statutes) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(by failing to provide equal representation and by employing discrimi-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(natory terms and conditions, practices, and/or procedures. They cite,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(in particular, the union's failure to provide its members with a Span-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(ish translation of the collective bargaining agreement or with the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.78 Tw
(assistance of a translator in interpreting the agreement. The plaintiffs) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(were not required to arbitrate claims against their union. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.73 Tw
(Blasic alleges that CSS violated the anti-discrimination statutes by) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(terminating him in retaliation for reporting racial discrimination in the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.54 Tw
(company's operations. He states that he was fired one week after) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(reporting to the defendants that Aleman, Basilis, and two other His-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.52 Tw
(panic employees had been dismissed and that derogatory comments) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(had been made to non-Caucasians at CSS' work site. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.91 Tw
(On November 7, 2005, the district court granted the defendants') Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(motion to dismiss the claims of Aleman and Basilis on the grounds) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.32 Tw
(that their collective bargaining agreement required binding arbitration) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.99 Tw
(of claims under Title VII "and/or all other federal, state, and local) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.9 Tw
(anti-discrimination laws." The court denied Aleman and Basilis') Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.42 Tw
(motion to add the union as a defendant in the same decision. On) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(March 28, 2006, the district court granted summary judgment to the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(defendants regarding Blasic's Title VII and Section 1981 claims on) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(the grounds that Alaska Native Corporations were exempt from suit) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(under both anti-discrimination statutes. It declined supplemental juris-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(diction over the remaining state law claims. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.4 Tw
(Aleman, Basilis, and Blasic do not now dispute that the defendants) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.94 Tw
(are immune from suit under Title VII, but they argue that the defen-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(dants are not immune from suit under Section 1981. They also argue) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(that the district court erred in dismissing the claims of Aleman and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(Basilis based upon the dispute resolution provision in their collective) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
4015
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.29 Tw
0 Tc
(bargaining agreement, and in declining to add the union as a defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dant.) Tj
156.733 -26.7 Td
(II.) Tj
-.322 -26.7 Td
(A.) Tj
-144.411 -26.6 Td
.15 Tw
(Title VII created a new cause of action for employment discrimina-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(tion against unions, employment agencies, and any entity defined as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(an "employer." The statute provides, in relevant part, ) Tj
22 -26.6 Td
.12 Tw
(It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(. . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.35 Tw
(or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(of employment, because of such individual's race, color,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(religion, sex, or national origin . . . . ) Tj
-22 -26.6 Td
.75 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(2000e-2\(a\). The class of employers covered by Title VII) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.19 Tw
(is restricted to persons with fifteen or more employees, and it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.02 Tw
(excludes bona fide private membership clubs, certain government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(entities, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.27 Tw
(2000e\(b\), and most relevantly Alaska Native Cor-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.61 Tw
(porations, 43 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.61 Tw
(1626\(g\) \(2000\), and Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.4 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.4 Tw
(2000e\(b\). The defendants argue that these exclusions not only bar) Tj
0 -13 Td
.75 Tw
(suit against Alaska Native Corporations and Indian tribes under Title) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.21 Tw
(VII, but also render such entities immune from suit under Section) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(1981. ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.8 Tw
(We reject this contention for two reasons. By their own terms, the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(Title VII exclusions are limited to Title VII itself. And Section 1981) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.34 Tw
( which the Supreme Court has instructed us to treat as a separate) Tj
0 -13 Td
.46 Tw
(and distinct cause of action contains no exemptions corresponding) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(to those in Title VII.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -27.1 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.83 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.79 Tw
(Because employer exemptions under Title VII do not bar suits under) Tj
-10.5 -12 Td
2.36 Tw
(Section 1981, we need not address the plaintiffs' contention that the) Tj
0 -12 Td
.53 Tw
(defendants do not qualify as Indian tribes for the purposes of Title VII's) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.05 Tw
(employer exemptions in any event. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -441.15 m 324 -441.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
3501
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
2.27 Tw
0 Tc
(While the definition of "employer" in Title VII excludes Indian) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.01 Tw
(tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, these exclusions state that they) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(are limited to the section of federal law that contains Title VII. The) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.97 Tw
(single-sentence exclusion for Alaska Native Corporations makes this) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(clear twice, stating, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -25.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(For the purposes of implementation of the Civil Rights Act) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.37 Tw
(of 1964) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( [42 U.S.C. 2000a ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(], a Native Corporation and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.45 Tw
(corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, or affiliates) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.16 Tw
(in which the Native Corporation owns not less than 25 per) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.38 Tw
(centum of the equity shall be within the class of entities) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.38 Tw
(excluded from the definition of "employer" by ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(section) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.75 Tw
(701\(b\)\(1\) of Public Law 88-352 \(78 Stat. 253\), as amended) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
([42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(2000e\(b\)\(1\)], ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(or successor statutes) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
-22 -25.2 Td
4.62 Tw
(43 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.62 Tw
(1626\(g\) \(emphasis added\). Similarly, the provision) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.36 Tw
(excluding Indian tribes from Title VII's definition of employer states,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.31 Tw
(") Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(For the purposes of this subchapter) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( . . . [t]he term `employer' . . .) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.29 Tw
(does not include . . . an Indian tribe . . . ." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.29 Tw
(2000e \(empha-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.49 Tw
(sis added\). The subchapter containing Title VII does not contain Sec-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion 1981. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.55 Tw
(Section 1981 contains no similar exception for Alaska Native Cor-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(porations. Its civil cause of action, enacted as part of the Civil Rights) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(Act of 1866, states, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.8 Tw
(States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . ." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.02 Tw
(1981\(a\). The Supreme Court has long held the Civil Rights Act of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.46 Tw
(1866 "to prohibit all racial discrimination, whether or not under color) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.45 Tw
(of law, with respect to the rights enumerated therein." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones v. Alfred) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.47 Tw
(H. Mayer Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 392 U.S. 409, 436 \(1968\). Congress amended the stat-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(ute in 1991 to codify this understanding, stating that Section 1981) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.56 Tw
(protects rights "against impairment by nongovernmental discrimina-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(tion" in addition to "impairment under color of State law." 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.12 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.12 Tw
(1981\(c\). Section 1981 makes no mention of Alaska Native Corpora-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.24 Tw
(tions or Indian tribes, and it includes no terms that could be construed) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(to set such entities outside the statute's reach. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1 Tw
(Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the exclusions of Alaska Native) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.36 Tw
(Corporations and Indian tribes from Title VII's definition of "em-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
4318
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.47 Tw
0 Tc
(ployer" could control under Section 1981, because Section 1981 does) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.68 Tw
(not apply solely to employers or employment discrimination. Section) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
5.11 Tw
(1981's prohibition on racial discrimination in the making and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.96 Tw
(enforcement of contracts has long been applied to relationships far) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(afield of employment. Black parents established "a classic violation) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.59 Tw
(of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.59 Tw
(1981" by showing that private schools refused, on the basis of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.88 Tw
(race, to enroll their children. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Runyon v. McCrary) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 427 U.S. 160, 172) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(\(1976\). Prospective purchasers of home leaseholds, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Pinchback v.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.73 Tw
(Armistead Homes Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 907 F.2d 1447, 1448 \(4th Cir. 1990\), and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(prospective club members, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Wright v. Salisbury Club, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 632 F.2d) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(309, 310 \(4th Cir. 1980\), among others, have availed themselves of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(the statute's protections. Thus, the Supreme Court wrote in ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Johnson) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( that the limitation of Title VII to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.48 Tw
(those defined as employers is one way in which Title VII is narrower) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(than Section 1981, writing that "Section 1981 is not coextensive in its) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.34 Tw
(coverage with Title VII" in part because "the latter is made inapplica-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.02 Tw
(ble to certain employers." 421 U.S. 454, 460 \(1975\). While exclusions) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.14 Tw
(from the "employer" category are crucial for the Title VII scheme) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.6 Tw
(directed at employment discrimination, they thus have lesser rele-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(vance under Section 1981's extended protections. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.38 Tw
(The defendants nevertheless urge that the employer exceptions in) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.43 Tw
(Title VII must be read broadly if they are to serve their purpose.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.43 Tw
(Without such a reading, Alaska Native Corporations would be immu-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.19 Tw
(nized from suit for acts of discrimination under Title VII, but face lia-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(bility under Section 1981 for some of the same acts a result that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.46 Tw
(defendants argue would strip the Title VII exemption of any meaning) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.79 Tw
(and run counter to what must have been Congress' purpose in enact-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.37 Tw
(ing the "employer" exceptions. The Tenth Circuit has agreed with) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(defendants, writing that the "specific" provisions of Title VII must be) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
(understood to impose limits on the "broad, general provision" of Sec-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(tion 1981, and that Indian tribes are therefore exempt from suit for) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.85 Tw
(discriminatory discharge under Section 1981. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Wardle v. Ute Indian) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Tribe) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 623 F.2d 670, 673 \(10th Cir. 1980\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.32 Tw
(The Supreme Court has foreclosed such a reading of Title VII as) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.84 Tw
(intended to amend Section 1981 ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(sub silentio) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( in the areas where Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.72 Tw
(VII is more specific, holding "that the remedies available under Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.24 Tw
(VII and under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.24 Tw
(1981, although related, and although directed to most) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.93 Tw
(of the same ends, are separate, distinct, and independent." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Railway) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
4510
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.67 Tw
0 Tc
(Express) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421 U.S. at 461. "Title VII was designed to supplement) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.22 Tw
(rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employ-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.02 Tw
(ment discrimination," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 415 U.S. 36,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.13 Tw
(48-49 \(1979\), because Congress sought "to accord parallel or overlap-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.15 Tw
(ping remedies against discrimination," not to overwrite longstanding) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.43 Tw
(remedies through its subsequent enactments, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 48. In sum, an) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.3 Tw
(individual aggrieved by acts of employment discrimination "clearly is) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.21 Tw
(not deprived of other remedies he possesses and is not limited to Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(VII in his search for relief." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Railway Express) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421 U.S. at 459; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.83 Tw
(also ) Tj
(Johnson v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 575 F.2d 471, 473 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(1978\) \("The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not repeal by implication) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(any part of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1981."\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.34 Tw
(We find nothing implausible about Congress' enacting overlapping) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(causes of action or deciding that Alaska Native Corporations should) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.05 Tw
(be exempt from suit under Title VII, but not Section 1981. While both) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(Section 1981 and Title VII provide remedies against racial discrimi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.53 Tw
(nation, Title VII imposes obligations that are in some ways more) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(expansive. To take the most obvious example, Title VII addresses not) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(simply discrimination based upon race or color but also discrimina-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.19 Tw
(tion based upon "religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.19 Tw
(2000e-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(2\(a\). A legislature could easily desire to subject only certain entities) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(to the additional strictures of Title VII, while leaving in place the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.23 Tw
(more limited cause of action in Section 1981 that has long been a part) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(of our anti-discrimination law. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.81 Tw
(In addition, Title VII establishes new remedies for racial discrimi-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(nation in employment that Congress could have seen as undesirable) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.24 Tw
(for Alaska Native Corporations. Under the Title VII framework, a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.94 Tw
(claimant must first lodge a charge with the Equal Employment) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(Opportunity Commission \("EEOC"\), ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(2000e-5\(e\)-\(f\);) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
.14 Tw
(Great Am. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 442 U.S. 366, 372-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.65 Tw
(74 \(1979\) an action that is not a prerequisite to filing a Section) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(1981 suit. After lodging a charge under Title VII, however, a com-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(plainant can benefit from EEOC powers not made available by Sec-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.64 Tw
(tion 1981. These include the agency's ability to investigate charges) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.52 Tw
(of discrimination, its attempts to remedy noncompliance through vol-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.69 Tw
(untary or negotiated changes, and its authority to file a civil action) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(against the offending party and practice itself. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Railway Express) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
(U.S. at 458. There is nothing paradoxical about Congress' not apply-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
4587
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.67 Tw
0 Tc
(ing these arguably more intrusive mechanisms to Alaska Native Cor-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
7.08 Tw
(porations, without narrowing the scope of the longstanding,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.98 Tw
(comparatively bare-bones cause of action against racial discrimina-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3 Tw
(tion provided by Section 1981. In any event, because this is the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.3 Tw
(approach embodied in the language of the two statutes and in the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.48 Tw
(Supreme Court's decisions, the district court erred in holding that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.1 Tw
(plaintiffs could be deprived of a cause of action against Alaska Native) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(Corporations under Section 1981 on the grounds that such defendants) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(are not subject to suit under Title VII. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.79 Tw
(To be sure, we have recognized Indian tribal immunity as a bar to) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(Section 1981 liability. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Yashenko v. Harrah's N.C. Casino Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(446 F.3d 541, 551-53 \(4th Cir. 2006\). But the defendants claim no) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(such immunity here and we find no basis to conclude that the owner-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.97 Tw
(ship of the defendant corporations by Alaska Natives and their devi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.9 Tw
(sees, or any other attribute, entitles the defendants to immunity from) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.92 Tw
(suits arising from their for-profit construction activities in Maryland.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.94 Tw
(While the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes "is a necessary corol-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.81 Tw
(lary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Three Affiliated) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.31 Tw
(Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 476) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(U.S. 877, 890 \(1986\), Alaska Native Corporations and their subsidia-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(ries are not comparable sovereign entities, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Native Village of Ste-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(vens v. Alaska Management & Planning) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 757 P.2d 32, 34 \(Alaska) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.9 Tw
(1988\) \(reviewing differences between Alaska Native groups and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(Indian tribes and holding most Alaska native groups lack immunity) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(from suit because they are "not self-governing or in any meaningful) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.91 Tw
(sense sovereign"\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Seldovia Native Ass'n v. Lujan) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 904 F.2d) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(1335, 1350 \(9th Cir. 1990\) \(holding that Alaska Native Village Cor-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.35 Tw
(poration "does not meet one of the basic criteria of an Indian tribe") Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.22 Tw
(because it "is not a governing body"\). In short, Indian tribal immunity) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(does not foreclose Section 1981 relief here. ) Tj
156.7272 -25.3 Td
(B.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.3 Td
2.4 Tw
(The defendants claim that the district court's grant of summary) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.2 Tw
(judgment in its favor on plaintiff Blasic's claims for retaliation can be) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.73 Tw
(upheld on the alternate ground that Section 1981 does not contain an) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.35 Tw
(anti-retaliation provision. They argue that if we fail to apply Title VII) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.77 Tw
(employer exemptions to Section 1981, we must likewise decline to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(import an anti-retaliation principle from Title VII into Section 1981.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
4176
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
1.02 Tw
0 Tc
(This argument fails for two reasons. First, it was not raised in the) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.35 Tw
(district court. Second, it is foreclosed by Supreme Court and circuit) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(precedent, which hold retaliation to be a form of differential treatment) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.21 Tw
(subsumed in the anti-discrimination language of Section 1981. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Bryant) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.89 Tw
(v. Aiken Reg'l Med. Ctrs., Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 333 F.3d 536, 543 \(4th Cir. 2003\)) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.35 Tw
(\(holding that a "plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under . . .) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.3 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.3 Tw
(1981" in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(VII\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. 167, 174-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(75 \(2005\) \(retaliation for complaints of unlawful discrimination is a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(form of discrimination\). Under these precedents, plaintiffs such as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(Blasic can challenge as discriminatory actions that were taken against) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.28 Tw
(them for reporting unlawful discrimination, even if the plaintiffs were) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(not subject to discrimination based upon their own race, gender, or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.48 Tw
(similar protected status. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 396) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(U.S. 229, 237 \(1969\) \(permitting white plaintiff to bring suit under 42) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.15 Tw
(1982's racial discrimination provisions because he suffered) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.61 Tw
(retaliation for protesting discrimination against black person\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Jack-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.98 Tw
(son) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at 171 \(holding male athletic coach could bring suit) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(under prohibition on sex discrimination in Title IX of the Education) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.44 Tw
(Amendments of 1972, because coach alleged that he suffered adverse) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.7 Tw
(consequences for protesting discriminatory treatment of female ath-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(letes\). In sum, the grant of summary judgment against Blasic on his) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.01 Tw
(Section 1981 claims cannot be justified on the alternative grounds that) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.34 Tw
(Section 1981 does not encompass retaliation claims.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Blasic had the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(right to protest discrimination visited upon Hispanic employees and) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(to proceed under Section 1981 if he lost his job as a result.) Tj
154.8182 -25.4 Td
(III.) Tj
1.5928 -25.4 Td
(A.) Tj
-144.411 -25.4 Td
1.94 Tw
(Plaintiffs also appeal the dismissal of the claims of Aleman and) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.35 Tw
(Basilis. The district court based its dismissal upon a provision in Ale-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.97 Tw
(man and Basilis' collective bargaining agreement requiring manda-) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -25.9 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.17 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.16 Tw
(The defendants' similar argument that mixed-motive discrimination is) Tj
-10.5 -11.5 Td
1.04 Tw
(not cognizable under Section 1981 does not appear to have been raised) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(below and was not addressed by the district court. It cannot provide an) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
0 Tw
(alternate basis here for affirming summary judgment to the defendants on) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(Blasic's claims. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -431.75 m 324 -431.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
4378
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.76 Tw
0 Tc
(tory arbitration of discrimination claims. The two union members) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.74 Tw
(argue that the provision should not bind them. They have stated in) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.74 Tw
(affidavits that their "ability to speak and read English is limited" and) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.9 Tw
("very limited," respectively, and that each has "a very limited ability) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.9 Tw
(to read English as compared to Spanish," although neither plaintiff) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.93 Tw
(suggested in his affidavit or complaint that he could not read or) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.95 Tw
(understand the arbitration provision as written.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( While Aleman and) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.28 Tw
(Basilis point to no statute or precedent indicating an employer must) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.97 Tw
(secure translations of a collective bargaining agreement according to) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.05 Tw
(union members' relative linguistic skills or preferences, they argue) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(that such a duty is a logical extension of principles of contract law) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.78 Tw
(and collective bargaining. We find neither of these sources support) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.73 Tw
(such a duty and decline to void the arbitration provision with respect) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(to Aleman and Basilis on these grounds. ) Tj
12 -25.6 Td
.12 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis first argue that they should not be bound by the) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
2.16 Tw
(arbitration provision in their collective bargaining agreement as an) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.47 Tw
(extension or application of "ordinary contract principles." Brief of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.32 Tw
(Appellants at 39. They suggest that because they were not provided) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.08 Tw
(with a translated version of the arbitration provision, there was no) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.1 Tw
("meeting of the minds" between themselves and their employer, given) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.93 Tw
(that their Spanish skills were stronger than their English skills. Brief) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.04 Tw
(of Appellant at 39, 40. In other words, they claim the provision was) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.49 Tw
(not binding because there was no true agreement between the parties.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.5 Td
.83 Tw
(See ) Tj
(Restatement \(Second\) of Contracts) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.83 Tw
(17 cmt. c \(1981\) \("The ele-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.76 Tw
(ment of agreement is sometimes referred to as a `meeting of the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(minds.'"\). ) Tj
12 -25.6 Td
4.18 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis' suggestion that the collective bargaining) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
2.63 Tw
(agreement was not binding upon them because they did not truly) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.74 Tw
(agree to its terms disregards the "collective" in "collective bargain-) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.1 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.05 Tw
(Appellants state for the first time in their brief before this court that) Tj
-10.5 -11.5 Td
2.22 Tw
("Aleman and Basilis did not understand the arbitration provision and) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.5 Tw
(would not have understood it unless the company or union had provided) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.27 Tw
(them with Spanish translated copies of the arbitration provision." They) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.78 Tw
(made no such claims below, however, and make them now only in reli-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.1 Tw
(ance on Aleman and Basilis' declarations, neither of which states that the) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.94 Tw
(affiant did not understand the dispute resolution provision or would not) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(have understood it absent translation. Brief of Appellants at 40. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -397.25 m 324 -397.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
4339
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.51 Tw
0 Tc
(ing." The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right "to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.31 Tw
(form, join or assist labor organizations" and "to bargain collectively) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.53 Tw
(through representatives of their own choosing." 29 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.53 Tw
(157) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.94 Tw
(\(2000\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.94 Tw
(159\(a\) \(2000\). Acceptance by individual union) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.72 Tw
(members of individual provisions is not required, because the forma-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.21 Tw
(tion of a collective bargaining unit "extinguishes the individual) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.35 Tw
(employee's power to order his own relations with his employer and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.38 Tw
(creates a power vested in the chosen representative to act in the inter-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.95 Tw
(ests of all employees," with the result that "only the union may con-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.6 Tw
(tract the employee's terms and conditions of employment, and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.48 Tw
(provisions for processing his grievances." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Mfg. Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 388 U.S. 175, 180 \(1967\) \(footnote omitted\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(J.I.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.64 Tw
(Case Co. v. NLRB) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 321 U.S. 332, 336 \(1944\) \(describing employee's) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(status under collective bargaining agreement as analogous to that of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
("third party beneficiary"\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.31 Tw
(It is natural that a union member might desire higher wages or) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(more generous benefits or different working conditions than an agree-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.63 Tw
(ment provides. Still, in a representative negotiation, he "is bound" by) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.37 Tw
(it. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 388 U.S. at 180. As a result, when courts) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.39 Tw
(have spoken of the "meeting of the minds" required for a ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(collective) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
(bargaining agreement, it has been a "meeting of the minds" between) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(an employer and a union, not between an employer and each and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(every individual union member. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(United Steelworkers of Am.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(v. Bell Foundry Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 626 F.2d 139, 141 \(9th Cir. 1980\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also, e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
.52 Tw
(Ekas v. Carling Nat'l Breweries, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 602 F.2d 664, 666-67 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.15 Tw
(1979\) \(modification of collective bargaining agreement was valid) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.28 Tw
(when union and employer assented, despite objections of some) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(employees\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 861) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.21 Tw
(F.2d 1546, 1553-54 \(11th Cir. 1988\) \(collective bargaining agreement) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(was binding when union and employer manifested assent\).) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.2 Tw
(Nor can we find a basis for Aleman and Basilis' novel duty of) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
3.43 Tw
(translation in the settled requirement that a collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.31 Tw
(agreement contain a "clear and unmistakable" waiver of the right to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
(a federal judicial forum in order to require the binding arbitration of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.82 Tw
(statutory discrimination claims. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Wright v. Universal Maritime Serv.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 525 U.S. 70, 80 \(1998\). As the precedents of the Supreme) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.44 Tw
(Court and our circuit have established, this is a principle of clear) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.98 Tw
(drafting, which ensures that the federal forum for such claims is) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
4762
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.93 Tw
0 Tc
(waived only when the union and employer clearly intended such a) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(waiver. Thus, the Supreme Court has explained this requirement to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(mean that the federal-forum waiver must be "`explicitly stated,'" ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.3 Td
4.01 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 460 U.S. 693, 701) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.85 Tw
(\(1983\)\), and that an employee is not required to arbitrate federal) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.31 Tw
(employment discrimination claims when the collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(agreement "does not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(covered employees' rights to a judicial forum," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 82.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.34 Tw
(Our circuit has thus read ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Universal Maritime) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to require that collec-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(tive bargaining agreements eliminate any doubt that a waiver of a fed-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
5.08 Tw
(eral forum was intended. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Universal Maritime) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, we have noted,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.89 Tw
("indicates that the requisite degree of clarity can be achieved by two) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.53 Tw
(different approaches." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Carson v. Giant Food, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 175 F.3d 325, 331) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 1999\). First, provisions that require arbitration of disputes) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.32 Tw
(without mentioning statutory claims nonetheless require arbitration of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(statutory claims if the rest of the agreement "makes it unmistakably) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(clear" that a violation of discrimination laws constitutes a grievance) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(or dispute under the agreement. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 332. Second, an agreement) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.23 Tw
(requires arbitration of statutory discrimination claims if it contains) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.38 Tw
("an explicit arbitration clause" referring to statutory claims, which) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.65 Tw
(would require in the case of an agreement to arbitrate all federal) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.7 Tw
(employment claims "a clear and unmistakable provision under which) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.69 Tw
(the employees agree to submit to arbitration all federal causes of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(action arising out of their employment." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 331. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.98 Tw
(The collective bargaining agreement to which Aleman and Basilis) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(were subject met the ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Universal Maritime) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( test. The agreement pro-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.97 Tw
(vided mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms for grievances and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.47 Tw
(stated, "The parties expressly agree that a grievance shall include any) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.86 Tw
(claim by an employee that he has been subjected to discrimination) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.01 Tw
(under Title VII . . . and/or ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(all other federal, state, and local anti-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.98 Tw
(discrimination laws) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(" \(emphasis added\). The agreement thus satisfied) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.95 Tw
(the requirement of "clear and unmistakable" waiver, notwithstanding) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.06 Tw
(plaintiffs' suggestion, contrary to our precedent, that "clear and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.93 Tw
(unmistakable" waiver requires a meeting of the minds between the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.71 Tw
(employer and individual union members. As Aleman and Basilis cite) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(no statute or precedent that can form a basis for the new duty they) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(propose, we decline to place upon employers a requirement we find) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(without basis in law.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
4597
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15
54 0 obj
<<
/Length 55 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
1.14 Tw
0 Tc
(Indeed, to the extent that the plaintiffs assert that employers must) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.82 Tw
(provide translations of agreements on the theory that union members) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.02 Tw
(must individually consent to the waiver of a federal forum for statu-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.35 Tw
(tory discrimination claims, their argument is contrary to our cases) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.6 Tw
(establishing that unions are entitled to strike bargains that require) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.62 Tw
(arbitration of such claims. We have repeatedly held that such matters) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.99 Tw
(are among the subjects about which unions may bargain under the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.23 Tw
(National Labor Relations Act. We have observed that unions have the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.45 Tw
(right indeed, the duty to bargain with employers on their mem-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(bers' behalf over "terms and conditions of employment," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 29) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.01 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.01 Tw
(158\(d\) \(2000\), and that the method through which employers) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.07 Tw
(and union members resolve disputes is a preeminent term or condition) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(of employment. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Safrit v. Cone Mills Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 248 F.3d 306, 308 \(4th) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(Cir. 2001\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(78 F.3d 875, 885 \(4th Cir. 1996\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.81 Tw
(353 U.S. 448 \(1957\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Metropolitan Edison Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 460 U.S. at 705\). As) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.08 Tw
(a result, "Union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(require the arbitration of statutory discrimination claims are valid and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.91 Tw
(binding on unionized employees." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Carson) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 175 F.3d at 331; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(Safrit) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 248 F.3d at 308; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Austin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 78 F.3d at 880-85; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown v. ABF) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Freight Sys., Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 183 F.3d 319, 321 \(4th Cir. 1999\). ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.97 Tw
(The enactment of civil rights laws against discrimination does not) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(by itself mean the Congress intended to place the resolution of such) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.31 Tw
(claims beyond the reach of arbitration. Congress could do this, of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(course, but it has not yet done so. To hold otherwise would be too) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
(much an exercise in judicial implication. The scope of the arbitration) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(provision must be of a "clear and unmistakable" character no doubt,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(but to say there can be no waiver at all is to change the nature of col-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(lective bargaining over conditions of employment and to read judicial) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(exceptions into the National Labor Relations Act.) Tj
156.7272 -25.3 Td
(B.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.3 Td
2.4 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis, however, argue that an employer's duty to) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.8 Tw
(provide translations of the agreement to employees with deficient) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(English skills renders the foregoing principles inoperative and voids) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(the collective bargaining agreement's dispute resolution provision.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.99 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis argue that their proposed duty would be mini-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(mally disruptive because this court could simply require that "if an) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
4484
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16
57 0 obj
<<
/Length 58 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
3.8 Tw
0 Tc
(employer has notice that certain employees cannot communicate) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.42 Tw
(effectively in English, the employer must take reasonable steps to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.9 Tw
(ensure that these employees understand the arbitration provision.") Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Reply Brief of Appellants at 20. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
3.41 Tw
(To begin with, the duty is much too benignly described. The) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.54 Tw
(employer is under no remedial order, and the basis of the duty in law) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.88 Tw
(is as vague as its obligations are significant. The number of employ-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(ees who could invoke this principle to escape collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.8 Tw
(provisions of all sorts would be vast, since the degree of linguistic) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.87 Tw
(deficiency needed to invoke the duty is unclear, and plaintiffs would) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.56 Tw
(evidently require employers to secure translations on behalf of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(employees such as themselves who evidently speak and read) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.88 Tw
(some English. Ostensibly, Aleman and Basilis' proposed duty would) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.61 Tw
(apply only when employers had notice of limited language skills, but) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.83 Tw
(the plaintiffs would hold employers to be on notice of limited lan-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(guage skills even where as here there is no allegation that the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.32 Tw
(plaintiffs or their union told the defendants of Aleman or Basilis' lan-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(guage limitations. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.79 Tw
(Even if employers could determine when they were subject to this) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(new duty, it is unclear just what "reasonable steps" employers would) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(be required to take in order to render the negotiated collective bar-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.02 Tw
(gaining agreement fully comprehensible and thus enforceable. Ale-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(man and Basilis offer no more than passing suggestions as to how this) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.72 Tw
(duty could be discharged, contending that perhaps employers could) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.8 Tw
(fulfill the obligation through posted translations at the work site. But) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.07 Tw
(conceivably, the new duty could require translations in many different) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.63 Tw
(languages, and the quality and accuracy of the translations would) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.45 Tw
(likely be at issue. The threat of voidability under this opaque) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.71 Tw
(employer obligation would cast a pall over collective bargaining as a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.19 Tw
(technique for resolving labor disputes, for neither side could be cer-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(tain when deals would bind the parties and when they would wholly) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(or partially unravel with respect to many of those they purported to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(cover.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.41 Tw
(The disruption that the plaintiffs' proposed duty threatens is only) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
3.07 Tw
(compounded by plaintiffs' suggestion that employers could fulfill) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(their duty of translation by ensuring that unions faithfully communi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(cated the contents of collective bargaining agreements to union mem-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
3898
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17
60 0 obj
<<
/Length 61 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.76 Tw
0 Tc
(bers. It would be dicey to say the least for an employer to seek to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.83 Tw
(compel a union to fulfill what the employer regards as the union's) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.83 Tw
(obligations to those it represents. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(NLRB v. Electra-Food) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.75 Tw
(Machinery, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 621 F.2d 956, 958 \(9th Cir. 1980\) \(holding that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.99 Tw
(employer overstepped its role when it refused to enter into written) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.15 Tw
(collective bargaining agreement because it believed union's entering) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.85 Tw
(the deal would violate union constitution\). Nor could the employer) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.24 Tw
(step in easily on its own. Unions and employers may well disagree on) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.13 Tw
(the nature of collective bargaining agreement obligations, and encour-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.88 Tw
(aging excessive employer involvement in union affairs may generate) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.11 Tw
("collateral issues" which might themselves "become the source of dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.46 Tw
(pute and litigation." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( By suggesting that internal union matters,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.01 Tw
(including unions' internal communications, can affect the validity of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(a collective bargaining agreement, the plaintiffs would force employ-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ers to engage in intrusive oversight of their bargaining partners.) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
1.26 Tw
(The proposed employer duty to provide union members with col-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.7 Tw
(lective bargaining agreement translations is fraught with problems) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.98 Tw
(that only Congress or other policy-making bodies could sort out.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.99 Tw
(Whatever duty might arise in this regard between unions and their) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.48 Tw
(members is a question that is not before us.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Zamora v. Local 11) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26.3 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.65 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.57 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis did not name the union as a defendant in their) Tj
-10.5 -11.7 Td
.1 Tw
(complaint. We affirm the denial of Aleman and Basilis' motion to amend) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.94 Tw
(their complaint to add their union as a defendant, considering "both the) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.82 Tw
(general principles of amendment provided by Rule 15\(a\) and also the) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
3.06 Tw
(more specific joinder provisions of Rule 20\(a\)." ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Hinson v. Norwest) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.71 Tw
(Financial S.C., Inc.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 239 F.3d 611, 618 \(4th Cir. 2001\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Desert) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.05 Tw
(Empire Bank v. Insurance Co.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 623 F.2d 1371, 1374 \(9th Cir. 1980\)\). ) Tj
10.5 -16.7 Td
.09 Tw
(Rule 20 gives courts wide discretion concerning the permissive joinder) Tj
-10.5 -11.7 Td
.85 Tw
(of parties, and "should be construed in light of its purpose, which `is to) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.72 Tw
(promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of dis-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.24 Tw
(putes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.'" ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Saval v. BL, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 710 F.2d) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.61 Tw
(1027, 1031 \(4th Cir. 1983\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Mosley v. General Motors Corp.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.13 Tw
(497 F.2d 1330, 1332 \(8th Cir. 1974\)\). "[T]he court has discretion to deny) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.79 Tw
(joinder if it determines that) Tj
( the addition of the party under Rule 20 will) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.42 Tw
(not foster the objectives of the rule, but will result in prejudice, expense,) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(or delay." 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
0 -11.6 Td
2.87 Tw
(Federal Practice and Procedure) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.87 Tw
(1652 \(3d ed. 2001\). Aleman and) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.32 Tw
(Basilis were not required to arbitrate claims against their union, but join-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -274.45 m 324 -274.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
4968
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18
63 0 obj
<<
/Length 64 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(817 F.2d 566, 569-71 \(9th Cir. 1987\) \(stating that union rule of not) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
4.48 Tw
(providing appropriate translation assistance at monthly meetings) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.96 Tw
(deprived non-English speaking members of right to participate in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.68 Tw
(deliberations\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel & Elevator Opera-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.88 Tw
(tors Union) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 453 F.2d 1018, 1023-25 \(9th Cir. 1972\) \(stating that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.41 Tw
(union's failure to provide Spanish-speaking members with translation) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.52 Tw
(of collective bargaining agreement and other translation assistance) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.3 Tw
(could violate duty of fair representation\). The employer duty of trans-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.37 Tw
(lation that Aleman and Basilis propose is, however, as at odds with) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.5 Tw
(the aims of collective bargaining as it is without foundation in statute) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(and precedent. ) Tj
156.7272 -25.9 Td
(C.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.9 Td
.62 Tw
(Since Aleman and Basilis were bound by the collective bargaining) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.25 Tw
(agreement, they were required to resolve their discrimination claims) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.43 Tw
(through the procedures it provided, because the claims arose during) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.08 Tw
(the agreement's stated coverage period. The agreement sets forth) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.79 Tw
(mandatory dispute resolution procedures for any "grievance . . . aris-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.47 Tw
(ing during the term of this Agreement" between an employer and a) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.28 Tw
(union member, including "any claim by an employee that he has been) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(subjected to discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.13 Tw
(1964, as amended, . . . and/or all other federal, state, and local anti-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1 Tw
(discrimination laws." The "term of the agreement" is defined repeat-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.41 Tw
(edly as May 1, 2001 until April 30, 2004 a period that includes all) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(the time Aleman and Basilis worked for CSS. This period is set out) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.72 Tw
(twice on the agreement's initial page, which contains the dates "May) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(1, 2001 - April 30, 2004" near the top of the pact, above the word) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
("Agreement." The agreement goes on to state:) Tj
22 -25.8 Td
.25 Tw
(The undersigned employer accepts each and every provision) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.61 Tw
(of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Con-) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
-22 -26.2 Td
1.58 Tw
(ing new claims against a new party with now-dismissed claims would) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.94 Tw
(not promote the above objectives and the district court did not err in) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(denying leave to amend. ) Tj
10.5 -16.7 Td
.36 Tw
(Since the motion to add the union as a defendant was properly denied,) Tj
-10.5 -11.6 Td
.19 Tw
(we express no view on any possible claim that Aleman and Basilis might) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(have against their union. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -414.55 m 324 -414.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
3812
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 63 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19
66 0 obj
<<
/Length 67 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8 Td
1.84 Tw
0 Tc
(struction Contractors Council, Inc. A.G.C. Labor Divi-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
6.45 Tw
(sion and the Washington D.C. Regional Council of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.45 Tw
(Carpenters, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(effective May 1, 2001 to an[d] including April) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.28 Tw
(30, 2004) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( and adopts said Agreement and each and every) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.25 Tw
(provision thereof as its own collective bargaining agreement) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.15 Tw
(with The Washington, D.C. Regional Council of Carpenters.) Tj
-22 -25.5 Td
.97 Tw
(\(emphasis added\). It specifies the same dates in the article on "dura-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.2 Tw
(tion of agreement," which states, "This Agreement shall be in full) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(force and effect from May 1, 2001, to and including April 30, 2004) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(. . . ." ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
2.26 Tw
(Plaintiffs suggest that other dates should define the agreement's) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.86 Tw
(temporal scope, but those dates have no operative significance under) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(the deal's terms. Representatives of CSS and the union did not sign) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.53 Tw
(the agreement until July of 2003, as Aleman and Basilis note, but the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.41 Tw
(agreement does not define its scope according to the dates of signing.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(And while Aleman and Basilis observe that they did not themselves) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.7 Tw
(join the union until August of 2003, when they did so, they bound) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(themselves to arbitrate any grievances arising during the term of the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(agreement as repeatedly set forth in the agreement's text. Since the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.2 Tw
(pact requires arbitration of all grievances arising during the term from) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.32 Tw
(May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2004, Aleman and Basilis' claims were) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(properly dismissed on the basis of the dispute resolution provisions.) Tj
154.4962 -25.5 Td
(IV.) Tj
-142.4962 -25.5 Td
4.38 Tw
(For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed in part,) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.08 Tw
(reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(this opinion.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
213.082 -25.5 Td
(AFFIRMED IN PART, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
4.7075 -12.5 Td
(REVERSED IN PART,) Tj
17.1735 -12.5 Td
(AND REMANDED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
2984
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 66 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 69 0 R
/FontDescriptor 70 0 R
>>
endobj
71 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 71 0 R
/FontDescriptor 72 0 R
>>
endobj
73 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
74 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 73 0 R
/FontDescriptor 74 0 R
>>
endobj
75 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
76 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 75 0 R
/FontDescriptor 76 0 R
>>
endobj
77 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
78 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 77 0 R
/FontDescriptor 78 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 79 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 79 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 79 0 R
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Kids [65 0 R]
/Count 1
/Type /Pages
/Parent 79 0 R
>>
endobj
79 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R]
/Count 19
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 79 0 R
>>
endobj
80 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Tuesday May 1, 2007 11:21:55)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 81
0000000000 65535 f
0000085027 00000 n
0000097764 00000 n
0000005134 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000005111 00000 n
0000086492 00000 n
0000089144 00000 n
0000090698 00000 n
0000093345 00000 n
0000097219 00000 n
0000008853 00000 n
0000005348 00000 n
0000008829 00000 n
0000013151 00000 n
0000009047 00000 n
0000013127 00000 n
0000095996 00000 n
0000017122 00000 n
0000013368 00000 n
0000017098 00000 n
0000021416 00000 n
0000017316 00000 n
0000021392 00000 n
0000025196 00000 n
0000021610 00000 n
0000025172 00000 n
0000029816 00000 n
0000025413 00000 n
0000029792 00000 n
0000097335 00000 n
0000034616 00000 n
0000030021 00000 n
0000034592 00000 n
0000039493 00000 n
0000034821 00000 n
0000039469 00000 n
0000043961 00000 n
0000039700 00000 n
0000043937 00000 n
0000048631 00000 n
0000044168 00000 n
0000048607 00000 n
0000053274 00000 n
0000048850 00000 n
0000053250 00000 n
0000058340 00000 n
0000053493 00000 n
0000058316 00000 n
0000097452 00000 n
0000063229 00000 n
0000058547 00000 n
0000063205 00000 n
0000068005 00000 n
0000063436 00000 n
0000067981 00000 n
0000072195 00000 n
0000068212 00000 n
0000072171 00000 n
0000077455 00000 n
0000072402 00000 n
0000077431 00000 n
0000081571 00000 n
0000077674 00000 n
0000081547 00000 n
0000084847 00000 n
0000081778 00000 n
0000084823 00000 n
0000097569 00000 n
0000085060 00000 n
0000086212 00000 n
0000087712 00000 n
0000088864 00000 n
0000090360 00000 n
0000090432 00000 n
0000091910 00000 n
0000093062 00000 n
0000094560 00000 n
0000095712 00000 n
0000097651 00000 n
0000097820 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 81
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 80 0 R
>>
startxref
97957
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
127.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 20 Tf 85 Tz
-124.106 -29.8 Td
2 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
75.476 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-78.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(J) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSE) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESAR) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASILIS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LASIC) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARLOS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORRAYO) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARIO) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ODAS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
75.9165 -12.5 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
6.771 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
-82.6875 -18 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LASKA) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORPORATION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
70.201 -12.5 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
161.1327 0 Td
(No. 06-1461) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-49.7137 -1.4 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -16.6 Td
173 0 Td
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-173 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWYERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(' C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMMITTEE FOR) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IGHTS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDER) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETROPOLITAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASHINGTON) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(MPLOYMENT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWYERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; W) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASHINGTON) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWYERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(') Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMMITTEE) Tj
2.02 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(FOR) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IGHTS) Tj
2.02 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(U) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RBAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(FFAIRS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
35.831 -12.5 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellants.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
145.789 -8.6 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-126.3923 -25.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
6.394 -12.4 Td
(for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.) Tj
7.3045 -12.4 Td
(William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.) Tj
41.019 -12.5 Td
(\(l:04-cv-04022-WDQ\)) Tj
-6.5955 -25.4 Td
(Argued: March 13, 2007) Tj
5.428 -24.9 Td
(Decided: May 3, 2007) Tj
-72.6975 -25.4 Td
(Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and) Tj
.6975 -12.5 Td
(T. S. ELLIS, III, Senior United States District Judge) Tj
-11.5015 -12.5 Td
(for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(by) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(designation.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -73.75 m 183.8 -73.75 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -191 m 186.6 -81.6 l s
.5 w 0 -222.95 m 173 -222.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -317.4 m 186.6 -208 l s
.9 w 0 -324.35 m 183.3 -324.35 l s
.5 w 0 -512.75 m 324 -512.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.16 Tw
0 Tc
(Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opin-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.11 Tw
(ion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Judge Ellis joined. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
134.2045 -44.3 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-134.2045 -25.9 Td
.38 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Eric Kenneth Bachman, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.78 Tw
(PANTAZIS, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Harvey) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.97 Tw
(Alan Levin, THOMPSON & COBURN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(for Appellees. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Ann C. Robertson, WIGGINS, CHILDS,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.87 Tw
(QUINN & PANTAZIS, P.L.L.C., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appel-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.1 Tw
(lants. Richard T. Seymour, Washington, D.C.; S. Micah Salb, LIPP-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.28 Tw
(MAN, SEMSKER & SALB, L.L.C., Bethesda, Maryland; Michael) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.35 Tw
(Foreman, Sarah Crawford, Monica Saxena, LAWYERS' COMMIT-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.72 Tw
(TEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, Washington, D.C.; Susan) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.61 Tw
(E. Huhta, Carolyn P. Weiss, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COM-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.01 Tw
(MITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washing-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ton, D.C., for Amici Supporting Appellants.) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
136.7632 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-136.7632 -25.9 Td
(WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.94 Tw
(Plaintiffs brought claims against their employer, Chugach Support) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.77 Tw
(Services, Inc., and its parent company, Chugach Alaska Corporation,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
(under 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.77 Tw
(1981 \(2000\), which prohibits racial discrimination) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.25 Tw
(in the making and enforcement of contracts, and Title VII of the Civil) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.33 Tw
(Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.33 Tw
(2000e-2000e-17 \(2000\), which pro-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.32 Tw
(hibits, among other things, employment discrimination based upon) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.07 Tw
(race and national origin. The district court granted summary judgment) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.5 Tw
(to the defendants on the claims of one plaintiff because it held that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.54 Tw
(Alaska Native Corporations and their subsidiaries were not subject to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.07 Tw
(suit under either of the federal anti-discrimination laws. It dismissed) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.95 Tw
(the claims of two other plaintiffs because a collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.18 Tw
(agreement required that the claims be addressed through binding arbi-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(tration. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -58.85 m 324 -58.85 l s
.5 w 0 -268.75 m 324 -268.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(We reinstate the claims of the first plaintiff because the exemption) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
2.05 Tw
(for Alaska Native Corporations from suit under Title VII does not) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(immunize the defendants from suit under the separate and indepen-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.2 Tw
(dent cause of action established by Section 1981. However, we affirm) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.72 Tw
(the dismissal of the union members' claims, because any duty to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.96 Tw
(explain the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.4 Tw
(employees with limited English skills belongs principally with the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(union which represents them.) Tj
158.6477 -25.2 Td
(I.) Tj
-146.6477 -25.3 Td
4.06 Tw
(The plaintiffs, carpenters Jose Aleman and Cesar Basilis and) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.3 Tw
(finance manager James Blasic, were employed by defendant Chugach) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.2 Tw
(Support Services, Inc. \("CSS"\) on construction projects that CSS con-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(tracted to perform for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.06 Tw
(vices at the National Institutes of Health \("NIH"\) campus in Bethesda,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
0 Tw
(Maryland.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( CSS performs general contractor services, typically for the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.57 Tw
(federal government, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.84 Tw
(Chugach Alaska Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation owned) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(by Native Alaskans and their devisees. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(Alaska Native Corporations play special roles in controlling lands) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.85 Tw
(and funds for Alaskan Natives, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Alaska Native Claims Settlement) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(Act, Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 \(1971\) \(codified as amended) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.06 Tw
(at 43 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.06 Tw
(1601-1629a \(2000\)\), but Chugach Alaska Corporation) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(also operates as a traditional business, employing about 5,000 people) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.5 Tw
(in construction, environmental services, information technology, tele-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.25 Tw
(communications, and other areas. The defendants have not alleged) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.7 Tw
(that the plaintiffs' work touched in any way on the internal affairs or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(special functions of the Alaska Native Corporation. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(Plaintiff Jose Aleman, who is Hispanic, performed carpentry and) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.87 Tw
(other tasks at the NIH site from March 10, 2003 until he was dis-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(missed on September 9, 2003. Plaintiff Cesar Basilis, who is also His-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(panic, worked at the NIH site from February 11, 2003, until he was) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.43 Tw
(dismissed on October 17, 2003. Plaintiff James Blasic, who describes) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -25.8 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.41 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.39 Tw
(Two other former employees, Carlos Borrayo and Mario Rodas, were) Tj
-10.5 -11.4 Td
.04 Tw
(also plaintiffs in the suit when it was filed, but have since voluntarily dis-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(missed their claims with prejudice. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.05 m 324 -455.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.35 Tw
0 Tc
(himself as Caucasian and does not claim Hispanic ancestry, worked) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(for CSS from December 2, 2002 until he was dismissed on October) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(22, 2003. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
2.54 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis were required to join the Washington D.C.) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(Regional Council of Carpenters as a condition of their employment,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.07 Tw
(and became members on August 15, 2003. The union's collective bar-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(gaining agreement states that it covers the period from May 1, 2001) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.58 Tw
(until April 30, 2004 a period that includes all of Aleman and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.07 Tw
(Basilis' time as CSS employees. It includes mandatory dispute resolu-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.7 Tw
(tion procedures, including procedures for binding arbitration, with) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.34 Tw
(respect to any "grievance" between an employer and an employee) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(represented by the union. It further states, ) Tj
22 -25.2 Td
2.17 Tw
(The parties expressly agree that a grievance shall include) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.39 Tw
(any claim by an employee that he has been subjected to dis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.56 Tw
(crimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.25 Tw
(as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.17 Tw
(the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or all other federal,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(state, and local anti-discrimination laws. ) Tj
-22 -25.2 Td
.7 Tw
(Blasic was not a union member, evidently because as a finance man-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(ager rather than a carpenter he was not required to join the union as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(a condition of employment. He was therefore not covered by the col-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(lective bargaining agreement's dispute resolution provisions.) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
2.54 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis have apparently not sought to resolve their) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.83 Tw
(grievances through the procedures set forth in the collective bargain-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ing agreement, but they allege that they should not be bound by the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.29 Tw
(procedures because they were not provided with a translation of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(collective bargaining agreement or its dispute resolution provisions) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.88 Tw
(into their native Spanish. Each stated in declarations made as part of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.86 Tw
(this litigation that his ability to speak and write English is limited.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.15 Tw
(Neither plaintiff claimed, however, that he did not or could not under-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(stand the arbitration provision in English. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.97 Tw
(Plaintiffs filed suit on December 27, 2004, claiming unlawful dis-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(crimination under Title VII and Section 1981 as well as Maryland) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.34 Tw
(law. Aleman and Basilis allege, in particular, that CSS terminated) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.7 Tw
(them on the basis of race. They also allege that when they were) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
(employed by CSS, they were paid less than non-Hispanic employees) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.61 Tw
(and were subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminatory) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.92 Tw
(terms and conditions of employment, including anti-Hispanic state-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.96 Tw
(ments by managers and employees, segregated eating areas, and dis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.73 Tw
(parate disciplinary treatment. They further allege that an "English) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.9 Tw
(Only" rule at their workplace constituted unlawful discrimination.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.26 Tw
(The two union members later filed a motion to amend their complaint) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.15 Tw
(in order to add their union as a defendant, asserting that the union dis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.88 Tw
(criminated against them under the same anti-discrimination statutes) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(by failing to provide equal representation and by employing discrimi-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(natory terms and conditions, practices, and/or procedures. They cite,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(in particular, the union's failure to provide its members with a Span-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(ish translation of the collective bargaining agreement or with the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.78 Tw
(assistance of a translator in interpreting the agreement. The plaintiffs) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(were not required to arbitrate claims against their union. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.73 Tw
(Blasic alleges that CSS violated the anti-discrimination statutes by) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(terminating him in retaliation for reporting racial discrimination in the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.54 Tw
(company's operations. He states that he was fired one week after) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(reporting to the defendants that Aleman, Basilis, and two other His-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.52 Tw
(panic employees had been dismissed and that derogatory comments) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(had been made to non-Caucasians at CSS' work site. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.91 Tw
(On November 7, 2005, the district court granted the defendants') Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(motion to dismiss the claims of Aleman and Basilis on the grounds) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.32 Tw
(that their collective bargaining agreement required binding arbitration) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.99 Tw
(of claims under Title VII "and/or all other federal, state, and local) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.9 Tw
(anti-discrimination laws." The court denied Aleman and Basilis') Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.42 Tw
(motion to add the union as a defendant in the same decision. On) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(March 28, 2006, the district court granted summary judgment to the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(defendants regarding Blasic's Title VII and Section 1981 claims on) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(the grounds that Alaska Native Corporations were exempt from suit) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(under both anti-discrimination statutes. It declined supplemental juris-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(diction over the remaining state law claims. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.4 Tw
(Aleman, Basilis, and Blasic do not now dispute that the defendants) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.94 Tw
(are immune from suit under Title VII, but they argue that the defen-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(dants are not immune from suit under Section 1981. They also argue) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(that the district court erred in dismissing the claims of Aleman and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(Basilis based upon the dispute resolution provision in their collective) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.29 Tw
0 Tc
(bargaining agreement, and in declining to add the union as a defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dant.) Tj
156.733 -26.7 Td
(II.) Tj
-.322 -26.7 Td
(A.) Tj
-144.411 -26.6 Td
.15 Tw
(Title VII created a new cause of action for employment discrimina-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(tion against unions, employment agencies, and any entity defined as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(an "employer." The statute provides, in relevant part, ) Tj
22 -26.6 Td
.12 Tw
(It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(. . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.35 Tw
(or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(of employment, because of such individual's race, color,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(religion, sex, or national origin . . . . ) Tj
-22 -26.6 Td
.75 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(2000e-2\(a\). The class of employers covered by Title VII) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.19 Tw
(is restricted to persons with fifteen or more employees, and it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.02 Tw
(excludes bona fide private membership clubs, certain government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(entities, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.27 Tw
(2000e\(b\), and most relevantly Alaska Native Cor-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.61 Tw
(porations, 43 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.61 Tw
(1626\(g\) \(2000\), and Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.4 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.4 Tw
(2000e\(b\). The defendants argue that these exclusions not only bar) Tj
0 -13 Td
.75 Tw
(suit against Alaska Native Corporations and Indian tribes under Title) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.21 Tw
(VII, but also render such entities immune from suit under Section) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(1981. ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.8 Tw
(We reject this contention for two reasons. By their own terms, the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(Title VII exclusions are limited to Title VII itself. And Section 1981) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.34 Tw
( which the Supreme Court has instructed us to treat as a separate) Tj
0 -13 Td
.46 Tw
(and distinct cause of action contains no exemptions corresponding) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(to those in Title VII.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -27.1 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.83 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.79 Tw
(Because employer exemptions under Title VII do not bar suits under) Tj
-10.5 -12 Td
2.36 Tw
(Section 1981, we need not address the plaintiffs' contention that the) Tj
0 -12 Td
.53 Tw
(defendants do not qualify as Indian tribes for the purposes of Title VII's) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.05 Tw
(employer exemptions in any event. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -441.15 m 324 -441.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
2.27 Tw
0 Tc
(While the definition of "employer" in Title VII excludes Indian) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.01 Tw
(tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, these exclusions state that they) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(are limited to the section of federal law that contains Title VII. The) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.97 Tw
(single-sentence exclusion for Alaska Native Corporations makes this) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(clear twice, stating, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -25.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(For the purposes of implementation of the Civil Rights Act) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.37 Tw
(of 1964) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( [42 U.S.C. 2000a ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(], a Native Corporation and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.45 Tw
(corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, or affiliates) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.16 Tw
(in which the Native Corporation owns not less than 25 per) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.38 Tw
(centum of the equity shall be within the class of entities) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.38 Tw
(excluded from the definition of "employer" by ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(section) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.75 Tw
(701\(b\)\(1\) of Public Law 88-352 \(78 Stat. 253\), as amended) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
([42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(2000e\(b\)\(1\)], ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(or successor statutes) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
-22 -25.2 Td
4.62 Tw
(43 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.62 Tw
(1626\(g\) \(emphasis added\). Similarly, the provision) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.36 Tw
(excluding Indian tribes from Title VII's definition of employer states,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.31 Tw
(") Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(For the purposes of this subchapter) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( . . . [t]he term `employer' . . .) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.29 Tw
(does not include . . . an Indian tribe . . . ." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.29 Tw
(2000e \(empha-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.49 Tw
(sis added\). The subchapter containing Title VII does not contain Sec-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion 1981. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.55 Tw
(Section 1981 contains no similar exception for Alaska Native Cor-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(porations. Its civil cause of action, enacted as part of the Civil Rights) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(Act of 1866, states, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.8 Tw
(States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . ." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.02 Tw
(1981\(a\). The Supreme Court has long held the Civil Rights Act of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.46 Tw
(1866 "to prohibit all racial discrimination, whether or not under color) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.45 Tw
(of law, with respect to the rights enumerated therein." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones v. Alfred) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.47 Tw
(H. Mayer Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 392 U.S. 409, 436 \(1968\). Congress amended the stat-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(ute in 1991 to codify this understanding, stating that Section 1981) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.56 Tw
(protects rights "against impairment by nongovernmental discrimina-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(tion" in addition to "impairment under color of State law." 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.12 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.12 Tw
(1981\(c\). Section 1981 makes no mention of Alaska Native Corpora-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.24 Tw
(tions or Indian tribes, and it includes no terms that could be construed) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(to set such entities outside the statute's reach. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1 Tw
(Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the exclusions of Alaska Native) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.36 Tw
(Corporations and Indian tribes from Title VII's definition of "em-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.47 Tw
0 Tc
(ployer" could control under Section 1981, because Section 1981 does) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.68 Tw
(not apply solely to employers or employment discrimination. Section) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
5.11 Tw
(1981's prohibition on racial discrimination in the making and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.96 Tw
(enforcement of contracts has long been applied to relationships far) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(afield of employment. Black parents established "a classic violation) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.59 Tw
(of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.59 Tw
(1981" by showing that private schools refused, on the basis of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.88 Tw
(race, to enroll their children. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Runyon v. McCrary) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 427 U.S. 160, 172) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(\(1976\). Prospective purchasers of home leaseholds, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Pinchback v.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.73 Tw
(Armistead Homes Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 907 F.2d 1447, 1448 \(4th Cir. 1990\), and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(prospective club members, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Wright v. Salisbury Club, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 632 F.2d) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(309, 310 \(4th Cir. 1980\), among others, have availed themselves of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(the statute's protections. Thus, the Supreme Court wrote in ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Johnson) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( that the limitation of Title VII to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.48 Tw
(those defined as employers is one way in which Title VII is narrower) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(than Section 1981, writing that "Section 1981 is not coextensive in its) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.34 Tw
(coverage with Title VII" in part because "the latter is made inapplica-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.02 Tw
(ble to certain employers." 421 U.S. 454, 460 \(1975\). While exclusions) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.14 Tw
(from the "employer" category are crucial for the Title VII scheme) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.6 Tw
(directed at employment discrimination, they thus have lesser rele-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(vance under Section 1981's extended protections. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.38 Tw
(The defendants nevertheless urge that the employer exceptions in) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.43 Tw
(Title VII must be read broadly if they are to serve their purpose.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.43 Tw
(Without such a reading, Alaska Native Corporations would be immu-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.19 Tw
(nized from suit for acts of discrimination under Title VII, but face lia-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(bility under Section 1981 for some of the same acts a result that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.46 Tw
(defendants argue would strip the Title VII exemption of any meaning) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.79 Tw
(and run counter to what must have been Congress' purpose in enact-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.37 Tw
(ing the "employer" exceptions. The Tenth Circuit has agreed with) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(defendants, writing that the "specific" provisions of Title VII must be) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
(understood to impose limits on the "broad, general provision" of Sec-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(tion 1981, and that Indian tribes are therefore exempt from suit for) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.85 Tw
(discriminatory discharge under Section 1981. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Wardle v. Ute Indian) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Tribe) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 623 F.2d 670, 673 \(10th Cir. 1980\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.32 Tw
(The Supreme Court has foreclosed such a reading of Title VII as) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.84 Tw
(intended to amend Section 1981 ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(sub silentio) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( in the areas where Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.72 Tw
(VII is more specific, holding "that the remedies available under Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.24 Tw
(VII and under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.24 Tw
(1981, although related, and although directed to most) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.93 Tw
(of the same ends, are separate, distinct, and independent." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Railway) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.67 Tw
0 Tc
(Express) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421 U.S. at 461. "Title VII was designed to supplement) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.22 Tw
(rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employ-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.02 Tw
(ment discrimination," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 415 U.S. 36,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.13 Tw
(48-49 \(1979\), because Congress sought "to accord parallel or overlap-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.15 Tw
(ping remedies against discrimination," not to overwrite longstanding) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.43 Tw
(remedies through its subsequent enactments, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 48. In sum, an) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.3 Tw
(individual aggrieved by acts of employment discrimination "clearly is) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.21 Tw
(not deprived of other remedies he possesses and is not limited to Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(VII in his search for relief." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Railway Express) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421 U.S. at 459; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.83 Tw
(also ) Tj
(Johnson v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 575 F.2d 471, 473 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(1978\) \("The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not repeal by implication) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(any part of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1981."\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.34 Tw
(We find nothing implausible about Congress' enacting overlapping) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(causes of action or deciding that Alaska Native Corporations should) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.05 Tw
(be exempt from suit under Title VII, but not Section 1981. While both) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(Section 1981 and Title VII provide remedies against racial discrimi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.53 Tw
(nation, Title VII imposes obligations that are in some ways more) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(expansive. To take the most obvious example, Title VII addresses not) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(simply discrimination based upon race or color but also discrimina-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.19 Tw
(tion based upon "religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.19 Tw
(2000e-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(2\(a\). A legislature could easily desire to subject only certain entities) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(to the additional strictures of Title VII, while leaving in place the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.23 Tw
(more limited cause of action in Section 1981 that has long been a part) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(of our anti-discrimination law. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.81 Tw
(In addition, Title VII establishes new remedies for racial discrimi-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(nation in employment that Congress could have seen as undesirable) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.24 Tw
(for Alaska Native Corporations. Under the Title VII framework, a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.94 Tw
(claimant must first lodge a charge with the Equal Employment) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(Opportunity Commission \("EEOC"\), ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(2000e-5\(e\)-\(f\);) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
.14 Tw
(Great Am. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 442 U.S. 366, 372-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.65 Tw
(74 \(1979\) an action that is not a prerequisite to filing a Section) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(1981 suit. After lodging a charge under Title VII, however, a com-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(plainant can benefit from EEOC powers not made available by Sec-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.64 Tw
(tion 1981. These include the agency's ability to investigate charges) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.52 Tw
(of discrimination, its attempts to remedy noncompliance through vol-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.69 Tw
(untary or negotiated changes, and its authority to file a civil action) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(against the offending party and practice itself. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Railway Express) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
(U.S. at 458. There is nothing paradoxical about Congress' not apply-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-243.8292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.67 Tw
0 Tc
(ing these arguably more intrusive mechanisms to Alaska Native Cor-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
7.08 Tw
(porations, without narrowing the scope of the longstanding,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.98 Tw
(comparatively bare-bones cause of action against racial discrimina-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3 Tw
(tion provided by Section 1981. In any event, because this is the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.3 Tw
(approach embodied in the language of the two statutes and in the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.48 Tw
(Supreme Court's decisions, the district court erred in holding that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.1 Tw
(plaintiffs could be deprived of a cause of action against Alaska Native) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(Corporations under Section 1981 on the grounds that such defendants) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(are not subject to suit under Title VII. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.79 Tw
(To be sure, we have recognized Indian tribal immunity as a bar to) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(Section 1981 liability. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Yashenko v. Harrah's N.C. Casino Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(446 F.3d 541, 551-53 \(4th Cir. 2006\). But the defendants claim no) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(such immunity here and we find no basis to conclude that the owner-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.97 Tw
(ship of the defendant corporations by Alaska Natives and their devi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.9 Tw
(sees, or any other attribute, entitles the defendants to immunity from) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.92 Tw
(suits arising from their for-profit construction activities in Maryland.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.94 Tw
(While the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes "is a necessary corol-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.81 Tw
(lary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Three Affiliated) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.31 Tw
(Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 476) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(U.S. 877, 890 \(1986\), Alaska Native Corporations and their subsidia-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(ries are not comparable sovereign entities, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Native Village of Ste-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(vens v. Alaska Management & Planning) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 757 P.2d 32, 34 \(Alaska) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.9 Tw
(1988\) \(reviewing differences between Alaska Native groups and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(Indian tribes and holding most Alaska native groups lack immunity) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(from suit because they are "not self-governing or in any meaningful) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.91 Tw
(sense sovereign"\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Seldovia Native Ass'n v. Lujan) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 904 F.2d) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(1335, 1350 \(9th Cir. 1990\) \(holding that Alaska Native Village Cor-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.35 Tw
(poration "does not meet one of the basic criteria of an Indian tribe") Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.22 Tw
(because it "is not a governing body"\). In short, Indian tribal immunity) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(does not foreclose Section 1981 relief here. ) Tj
156.7272 -25.3 Td
(B.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.3 Td
2.4 Tw
(The defendants claim that the district court's grant of summary) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.2 Tw
(judgment in its favor on plaintiff Blasic's claims for retaliation can be) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.73 Tw
(upheld on the alternate ground that Section 1981 does not contain an) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.35 Tw
(anti-retaliation provision. They argue that if we fail to apply Title VII) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.77 Tw
(employer exemptions to Section 1981, we must likewise decline to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(import an anti-retaliation principle from Title VII into Section 1981.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
1.02 Tw
0 Tc
(This argument fails for two reasons. First, it was not raised in the) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.35 Tw
(district court. Second, it is foreclosed by Supreme Court and circuit) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(precedent, which hold retaliation to be a form of differential treatment) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.21 Tw
(subsumed in the anti-discrimination language of Section 1981. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Bryant) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.89 Tw
(v. Aiken Reg'l Med. Ctrs., Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 333 F.3d 536, 543 \(4th Cir. 2003\)) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.35 Tw
(\(holding that a "plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under . . .) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.3 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.3 Tw
(1981" in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under Title) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(VII\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. 167, 174-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(75 \(2005\) \(retaliation for complaints of unlawful discrimination is a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(form of discrimination\). Under these precedents, plaintiffs such as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(Blasic can challenge as discriminatory actions that were taken against) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.28 Tw
(them for reporting unlawful discrimination, even if the plaintiffs were) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(not subject to discrimination based upon their own race, gender, or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.48 Tw
(similar protected status. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 396) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(U.S. 229, 237 \(1969\) \(permitting white plaintiff to bring suit under 42) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.15 Tw
(1982's racial discrimination provisions because he suffered) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.61 Tw
(retaliation for protesting discrimination against black person\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Jack-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.98 Tw
(son) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at 171 \(holding male athletic coach could bring suit) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(under prohibition on sex discrimination in Title IX of the Education) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.44 Tw
(Amendments of 1972, because coach alleged that he suffered adverse) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.7 Tw
(consequences for protesting discriminatory treatment of female ath-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(letes\). In sum, the grant of summary judgment against Blasic on his) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.01 Tw
(Section 1981 claims cannot be justified on the alternative grounds that) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.34 Tw
(Section 1981 does not encompass retaliation claims.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Blasic had the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(right to protest discrimination visited upon Hispanic employees and) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(to proceed under Section 1981 if he lost his job as a result.) Tj
154.8182 -25.4 Td
(III.) Tj
1.5928 -25.4 Td
(A.) Tj
-144.411 -25.4 Td
1.94 Tw
(Plaintiffs also appeal the dismissal of the claims of Aleman and) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.35 Tw
(Basilis. The district court based its dismissal upon a provision in Ale-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.97 Tw
(man and Basilis' collective bargaining agreement requiring manda-) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -25.9 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.17 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.16 Tw
(The defendants' similar argument that mixed-motive discrimination is) Tj
-10.5 -11.5 Td
1.04 Tw
(not cognizable under Section 1981 does not appear to have been raised) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(below and was not addressed by the district court. It cannot provide an) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
0 Tw
(alternate basis here for affirming summary judgment to the defendants on) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(Blasic's claims. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -431.75 m 324 -431.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.76 Tw
0 Tc
(tory arbitration of discrimination claims. The two union members) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.74 Tw
(argue that the provision should not bind them. They have stated in) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.74 Tw
(affidavits that their "ability to speak and read English is limited" and) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.9 Tw
("very limited," respectively, and that each has "a very limited ability) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.9 Tw
(to read English as compared to Spanish," although neither plaintiff) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.93 Tw
(suggested in his affidavit or complaint that he could not read or) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.95 Tw
(understand the arbitration provision as written.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( While Aleman and) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.28 Tw
(Basilis point to no statute or precedent indicating an employer must) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.97 Tw
(secure translations of a collective bargaining agreement according to) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.05 Tw
(union members' relative linguistic skills or preferences, they argue) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(that such a duty is a logical extension of principles of contract law) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.78 Tw
(and collective bargaining. We find neither of these sources support) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.73 Tw
(such a duty and decline to void the arbitration provision with respect) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(to Aleman and Basilis on these grounds. ) Tj
12 -25.6 Td
.12 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis first argue that they should not be bound by the) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
2.16 Tw
(arbitration provision in their collective bargaining agreement as an) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.47 Tw
(extension or application of "ordinary contract principles." Brief of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.32 Tw
(Appellants at 39. They suggest that because they were not provided) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.08 Tw
(with a translated version of the arbitration provision, there was no) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.1 Tw
("meeting of the minds" between themselves and their employer, given) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.93 Tw
(that their Spanish skills were stronger than their English skills. Brief) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.04 Tw
(of Appellant at 39, 40. In other words, they claim the provision was) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.49 Tw
(not binding because there was no true agreement between the parties.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.5 Td
.83 Tw
(See ) Tj
(Restatement \(Second\) of Contracts) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.83 Tw
(17 cmt. c \(1981\) \("The ele-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.76 Tw
(ment of agreement is sometimes referred to as a `meeting of the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(minds.'"\). ) Tj
12 -25.6 Td
4.18 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis' suggestion that the collective bargaining) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
2.63 Tw
(agreement was not binding upon them because they did not truly) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.74 Tw
(agree to its terms disregards the "collective" in "collective bargain-) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.1 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.05 Tw
(Appellants state for the first time in their brief before this court that) Tj
-10.5 -11.5 Td
2.22 Tw
("Aleman and Basilis did not understand the arbitration provision and) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.5 Tw
(would not have understood it unless the company or union had provided) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.27 Tw
(them with Spanish translated copies of the arbitration provision." They) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.78 Tw
(made no such claims below, however, and make them now only in reli-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.1 Tw
(ance on Aleman and Basilis' declarations, neither of which states that the) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.94 Tw
(affiant did not understand the dispute resolution provision or would not) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(have understood it absent translation. Brief of Appellants at 40. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -397.25 m 324 -397.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.51 Tw
0 Tc
(ing." The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right "to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.31 Tw
(form, join or assist labor organizations" and "to bargain collectively) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.53 Tw
(through representatives of their own choosing." 29 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.53 Tw
(157) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.94 Tw
(\(2000\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.94 Tw
(159\(a\) \(2000\). Acceptance by individual union) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.72 Tw
(members of individual provisions is not required, because the forma-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.21 Tw
(tion of a collective bargaining unit "extinguishes the individual) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.35 Tw
(employee's power to order his own relations with his employer and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.38 Tw
(creates a power vested in the chosen representative to act in the inter-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.95 Tw
(ests of all employees," with the result that "only the union may con-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.6 Tw
(tract the employee's terms and conditions of employment, and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.48 Tw
(provisions for processing his grievances." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Mfg. Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 388 U.S. 175, 180 \(1967\) \(footnote omitted\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(J.I.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.64 Tw
(Case Co. v. NLRB) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 321 U.S. 332, 336 \(1944\) \(describing employee's) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(status under collective bargaining agreement as analogous to that of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
("third party beneficiary"\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.31 Tw
(It is natural that a union member might desire higher wages or) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(more generous benefits or different working conditions than an agree-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.63 Tw
(ment provides. Still, in a representative negotiation, he "is bound" by) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.37 Tw
(it. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 388 U.S. at 180. As a result, when courts) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.39 Tw
(have spoken of the "meeting of the minds" required for a ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(collective) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
(bargaining agreement, it has been a "meeting of the minds" between) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(an employer and a union, not between an employer and each and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(every individual union member. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(United Steelworkers of Am.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(v. Bell Foundry Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 626 F.2d 139, 141 \(9th Cir. 1980\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also, e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
.52 Tw
(Ekas v. Carling Nat'l Breweries, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 602 F.2d 664, 666-67 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.15 Tw
(1979\) \(modification of collective bargaining agreement was valid) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.28 Tw
(when union and employer assented, despite objections of some) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(employees\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 861) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.21 Tw
(F.2d 1546, 1553-54 \(11th Cir. 1988\) \(collective bargaining agreement) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(was binding when union and employer manifested assent\).) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.2 Tw
(Nor can we find a basis for Aleman and Basilis' novel duty of) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
3.43 Tw
(translation in the settled requirement that a collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.31 Tw
(agreement contain a "clear and unmistakable" waiver of the right to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
(a federal judicial forum in order to require the binding arbitration of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.82 Tw
(statutory discrimination claims. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Wright v. Universal Maritime Serv.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 525 U.S. 70, 80 \(1998\). As the precedents of the Supreme) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.44 Tw
(Court and our circuit have established, this is a principle of clear) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.98 Tw
(drafting, which ensures that the federal forum for such claims is) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.93 Tw
0 Tc
(waived only when the union and employer clearly intended such a) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(waiver. Thus, the Supreme Court has explained this requirement to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(mean that the federal-forum waiver must be "`explicitly stated,'" ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.3 Td
4.01 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 460 U.S. 693, 701) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.85 Tw
(\(1983\)\), and that an employee is not required to arbitrate federal) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.31 Tw
(employment discrimination claims when the collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(agreement "does not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(covered employees' rights to a judicial forum," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 82.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.34 Tw
(Our circuit has thus read ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Universal Maritime) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to require that collec-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(tive bargaining agreements eliminate any doubt that a waiver of a fed-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
5.08 Tw
(eral forum was intended. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Universal Maritime) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, we have noted,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.89 Tw
("indicates that the requisite degree of clarity can be achieved by two) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.53 Tw
(different approaches." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Carson v. Giant Food, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 175 F.3d 325, 331) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 1999\). First, provisions that require arbitration of disputes) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.32 Tw
(without mentioning statutory claims nonetheless require arbitration of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(statutory claims if the rest of the agreement "makes it unmistakably) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(clear" that a violation of discrimination laws constitutes a grievance) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(or dispute under the agreement. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 332. Second, an agreement) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.23 Tw
(requires arbitration of statutory discrimination claims if it contains) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.38 Tw
("an explicit arbitration clause" referring to statutory claims, which) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.65 Tw
(would require in the case of an agreement to arbitrate all federal) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.7 Tw
(employment claims "a clear and unmistakable provision under which) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.69 Tw
(the employees agree to submit to arbitration all federal causes of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(action arising out of their employment." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 331. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.98 Tw
(The collective bargaining agreement to which Aleman and Basilis) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(were subject met the ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Universal Maritime) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( test. The agreement pro-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.97 Tw
(vided mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms for grievances and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.47 Tw
(stated, "The parties expressly agree that a grievance shall include any) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.86 Tw
(claim by an employee that he has been subjected to discrimination) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.01 Tw
(under Title VII . . . and/or ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(all other federal, state, and local anti-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.98 Tw
(discrimination laws) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(" \(emphasis added\). The agreement thus satisfied) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.95 Tw
(the requirement of "clear and unmistakable" waiver, notwithstanding) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.06 Tw
(plaintiffs' suggestion, contrary to our precedent, that "clear and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.93 Tw
(unmistakable" waiver requires a meeting of the minds between the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.71 Tw
(employer and individual union members. As Aleman and Basilis cite) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(no statute or precedent that can form a basis for the new duty they) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(propose, we decline to place upon employers a requirement we find) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(without basis in law.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
1.14 Tw
0 Tc
(Indeed, to the extent that the plaintiffs assert that employers must) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.82 Tw
(provide translations of agreements on the theory that union members) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.02 Tw
(must individually consent to the waiver of a federal forum for statu-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.35 Tw
(tory discrimination claims, their argument is contrary to our cases) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.6 Tw
(establishing that unions are entitled to strike bargains that require) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.62 Tw
(arbitration of such claims. We have repeatedly held that such matters) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.99 Tw
(are among the subjects about which unions may bargain under the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.23 Tw
(National Labor Relations Act. We have observed that unions have the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.45 Tw
(right indeed, the duty to bargain with employers on their mem-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(bers' behalf over "terms and conditions of employment," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 29) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.01 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.01 Tw
(158\(d\) \(2000\), and that the method through which employers) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.07 Tw
(and union members resolve disputes is a preeminent term or condition) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(of employment. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Safrit v. Cone Mills Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 248 F.3d 306, 308 \(4th) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(Cir. 2001\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(78 F.3d 875, 885 \(4th Cir. 1996\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.81 Tw
(353 U.S. 448 \(1957\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Metropolitan Edison Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 460 U.S. at 705\). As) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.08 Tw
(a result, "Union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(require the arbitration of statutory discrimination claims are valid and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.91 Tw
(binding on unionized employees." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Carson) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 175 F.3d at 331; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(Safrit) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 248 F.3d at 308; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Austin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 78 F.3d at 880-85; ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown v. ABF) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Freight Sys., Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 183 F.3d 319, 321 \(4th Cir. 1999\). ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.97 Tw
(The enactment of civil rights laws against discrimination does not) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(by itself mean the Congress intended to place the resolution of such) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.31 Tw
(claims beyond the reach of arbitration. Congress could do this, of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(course, but it has not yet done so. To hold otherwise would be too) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
(much an exercise in judicial implication. The scope of the arbitration) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(provision must be of a "clear and unmistakable" character no doubt,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(but to say there can be no waiver at all is to change the nature of col-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(lective bargaining over conditions of employment and to read judicial) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(exceptions into the National Labor Relations Act.) Tj
156.7272 -25.3 Td
(B.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.3 Td
2.4 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis, however, argue that an employer's duty to) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.8 Tw
(provide translations of the agreement to employees with deficient) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(English skills renders the foregoing principles inoperative and voids) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(the collective bargaining agreement's dispute resolution provision.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.99 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis argue that their proposed duty would be mini-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(mally disruptive because this court could simply require that "if an) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
3.8 Tw
0 Tc
(employer has notice that certain employees cannot communicate) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.42 Tw
(effectively in English, the employer must take reasonable steps to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.9 Tw
(ensure that these employees understand the arbitration provision.") Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Reply Brief of Appellants at 20. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
3.41 Tw
(To begin with, the duty is much too benignly described. The) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.54 Tw
(employer is under no remedial order, and the basis of the duty in law) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.88 Tw
(is as vague as its obligations are significant. The number of employ-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(ees who could invoke this principle to escape collective bargaining) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.8 Tw
(provisions of all sorts would be vast, since the degree of linguistic) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.87 Tw
(deficiency needed to invoke the duty is unclear, and plaintiffs would) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.56 Tw
(evidently require employers to secure translations on behalf of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(employees such as themselves who evidently speak and read) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.88 Tw
(some English. Ostensibly, Aleman and Basilis' proposed duty would) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.61 Tw
(apply only when employers had notice of limited language skills, but) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.83 Tw
(the plaintiffs would hold employers to be on notice of limited lan-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(guage skills even where as here there is no allegation that the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.32 Tw
(plaintiffs or their union told the defendants of Aleman or Basilis' lan-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(guage limitations. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.79 Tw
(Even if employers could determine when they were subject to this) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(new duty, it is unclear just what "reasonable steps" employers would) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(be required to take in order to render the negotiated collective bar-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.02 Tw
(gaining agreement fully comprehensible and thus enforceable. Ale-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(man and Basilis offer no more than passing suggestions as to how this) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.72 Tw
(duty could be discharged, contending that perhaps employers could) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.8 Tw
(fulfill the obligation through posted translations at the work site. But) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.07 Tw
(conceivably, the new duty could require translations in many different) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.63 Tw
(languages, and the quality and accuracy of the translations would) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.45 Tw
(likely be at issue. The threat of voidability under this opaque) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.71 Tw
(employer obligation would cast a pall over collective bargaining as a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.19 Tw
(technique for resolving labor disputes, for neither side could be cer-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(tain when deals would bind the parties and when they would wholly) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(or partially unravel with respect to many of those they purported to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(cover.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.41 Tw
(The disruption that the plaintiffs' proposed duty threatens is only) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
3.07 Tw
(compounded by plaintiffs' suggestion that employers could fulfill) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(their duty of translation by ensuring that unions faithfully communi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(cated the contents of collective bargaining agreements to union mem-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
60 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.76 Tw
0 Tc
(bers. It would be dicey to say the least for an employer to seek to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.83 Tw
(compel a union to fulfill what the employer regards as the union's) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.83 Tw
(obligations to those it represents. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(NLRB v. Electra-Food) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.75 Tw
(Machinery, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 621 F.2d 956, 958 \(9th Cir. 1980\) \(holding that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.99 Tw
(employer overstepped its role when it refused to enter into written) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.15 Tw
(collective bargaining agreement because it believed union's entering) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.85 Tw
(the deal would violate union constitution\). Nor could the employer) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.24 Tw
(step in easily on its own. Unions and employers may well disagree on) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.13 Tw
(the nature of collective bargaining agreement obligations, and encour-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.88 Tw
(aging excessive employer involvement in union affairs may generate) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.11 Tw
("collateral issues" which might themselves "become the source of dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.46 Tw
(pute and litigation." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( By suggesting that internal union matters,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.01 Tw
(including unions' internal communications, can affect the validity of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(a collective bargaining agreement, the plaintiffs would force employ-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ers to engage in intrusive oversight of their bargaining partners.) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
1.26 Tw
(The proposed employer duty to provide union members with col-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.7 Tw
(lective bargaining agreement translations is fraught with problems) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.98 Tw
(that only Congress or other policy-making bodies could sort out.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.99 Tw
(Whatever duty might arise in this regard between unions and their) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.48 Tw
(members is a question that is not before us.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Zamora v. Local 11) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26.3 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.65 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.57 Tw
(Aleman and Basilis did not name the union as a defendant in their) Tj
-10.5 -11.7 Td
.1 Tw
(complaint. We affirm the denial of Aleman and Basilis' motion to amend) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.94 Tw
(their complaint to add their union as a defendant, considering "both the) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.82 Tw
(general principles of amendment provided by Rule 15\(a\) and also the) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
3.06 Tw
(more specific joinder provisions of Rule 20\(a\)." ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Hinson v. Norwest) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.71 Tw
(Financial S.C., Inc.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 239 F.3d 611, 618 \(4th Cir. 2001\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Desert) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.05 Tw
(Empire Bank v. Insurance Co.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 623 F.2d 1371, 1374 \(9th Cir. 1980\)\). ) Tj
10.5 -16.7 Td
.09 Tw
(Rule 20 gives courts wide discretion concerning the permissive joinder) Tj
-10.5 -11.7 Td
.85 Tw
(of parties, and "should be construed in light of its purpose, which `is to) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.72 Tw
(promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of dis-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.24 Tw
(putes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.'" ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Saval v. BL, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 710 F.2d) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.61 Tw
(1027, 1031 \(4th Cir. 1983\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Mosley v. General Motors Corp.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.13 Tw
(497 F.2d 1330, 1332 \(8th Cir. 1974\)\). "[T]he court has discretion to deny) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.79 Tw
(joinder if it determines that) Tj
( the addition of the party under Rule 20 will) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.42 Tw
(not foster the objectives of the rule, but will result in prejudice, expense,) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(or delay." 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
0 -11.6 Td
2.87 Tw
(Federal Practice and Procedure) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.87 Tw
(1652 \(3d ed. 2001\). Aleman and) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.32 Tw
(Basilis were not required to arbitrate claims against their union, but join-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -274.45 m 324 -274.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
63 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(817 F.2d 566, 569-71 \(9th Cir. 1987\) \(stating that union rule of not) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
4.48 Tw
(providing appropriate translation assistance at monthly meetings) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.96 Tw
(deprived non-English speaking members of right to participate in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.68 Tw
(deliberations\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel & Elevator Opera-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.88 Tw
(tors Union) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 453 F.2d 1018, 1023-25 \(9th Cir. 1972\) \(stating that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.41 Tw
(union's failure to provide Spanish-speaking members with translation) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.52 Tw
(of collective bargaining agreement and other translation assistance) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.3 Tw
(could violate duty of fair representation\). The employer duty of trans-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.37 Tw
(lation that Aleman and Basilis propose is, however, as at odds with) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.5 Tw
(the aims of collective bargaining as it is without foundation in statute) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(and precedent. ) Tj
156.7272 -25.9 Td
(C.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.9 Td
.62 Tw
(Since Aleman and Basilis were bound by the collective bargaining) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.25 Tw
(agreement, they were required to resolve their discrimination claims) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.43 Tw
(through the procedures it provided, because the claims arose during) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.08 Tw
(the agreement's stated coverage period. The agreement sets forth) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.79 Tw
(mandatory dispute resolution procedures for any "grievance . . . aris-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.47 Tw
(ing during the term of this Agreement" between an employer and a) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.28 Tw
(union member, including "any claim by an employee that he has been) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(subjected to discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.13 Tw
(1964, as amended, . . . and/or all other federal, state, and local anti-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1 Tw
(discrimination laws." The "term of the agreement" is defined repeat-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.41 Tw
(edly as May 1, 2001 until April 30, 2004 a period that includes all) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(the time Aleman and Basilis worked for CSS. This period is set out) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.72 Tw
(twice on the agreement's initial page, which contains the dates "May) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(1, 2001 - April 30, 2004" near the top of the pact, above the word) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
("Agreement." The agreement goes on to state:) Tj
22 -25.8 Td
.25 Tw
(The undersigned employer accepts each and every provision) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.61 Tw
(of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Con-) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
-22 -26.2 Td
1.58 Tw
(ing new claims against a new party with now-dismissed claims would) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.94 Tw
(not promote the above objectives and the district court did not err in) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(denying leave to amend. ) Tj
10.5 -16.7 Td
.36 Tw
(Since the motion to add the union as a defendant was properly denied,) Tj
-10.5 -11.6 Td
.19 Tw
(we express no view on any possible claim that Aleman and Basilis might) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(have against their union. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -414.55 m 324 -414.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
74.6708 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
66 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8 Td
1.84 Tw
0 Tc
(struction Contractors Council, Inc. A.G.C. Labor Divi-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
6.45 Tw
(sion and the Washington D.C. Regional Council of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.45 Tw
(Carpenters, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(effective May 1, 2001 to an[d] including April) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.28 Tw
(30, 2004) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( and adopts said Agreement and each and every) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.25 Tw
(provision thereof as its own collective bargaining agreement) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.15 Tw
(with The Washington, D.C. Regional Council of Carpenters.) Tj
-22 -25.5 Td
.97 Tw
(\(emphasis added\). It specifies the same dates in the article on "dura-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.2 Tw
(tion of agreement," which states, "This Agreement shall be in full) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(force and effect from May 1, 2001, to and including April 30, 2004) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(. . . ." ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
2.26 Tw
(Plaintiffs suggest that other dates should define the agreement's) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.86 Tw
(temporal scope, but those dates have no operative significance under) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(the deal's terms. Representatives of CSS and the union did not sign) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.53 Tw
(the agreement until July of 2003, as Aleman and Basilis note, but the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.41 Tw
(agreement does not define its scope according to the dates of signing.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(And while Aleman and Basilis observe that they did not themselves) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.7 Tw
(join the union until August of 2003, when they did so, they bound) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(themselves to arbitrate any grievances arising during the term of the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(agreement as repeatedly set forth in the agreement's text. Since the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.2 Tw
(pact requires arbitration of all grievances arising during the term from) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.32 Tw
(May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2004, Aleman and Basilis' claims were) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(properly dismissed on the basis of the dispute resolution provisions.) Tj
154.4962 -25.5 Td
(IV.) Tj
-142.4962 -25.5 Td
4.38 Tw
(For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed in part,) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.08 Tw
(reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(this opinion.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
213.082 -25.5 Td
(AFFIRMED IN PART, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
4.7075 -12.5 Td
(REVERSED IN PART,) Tj
17.1735 -12.5 Td
(AND REMANDED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-238.3292 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEMAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HUGACH) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UPPORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj
<>
endobj
82 0 obj
<>stream
Tuesday May 1, 2007 11:21:55
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-01-29T12:53:05-07:00
2008-01-29T12:53:05-07:00
2008-01-29T12:53:05-07:00
application/pdf
Aleman; Basilis; Blasic; Borrayo; Rodas v. Chugach Support Services, Incorporated; Chugach Alaska Corparation (Opinion)
uuid:7aa0c7f8-d9ec-4aff-848a-5155d92efc1e
uuid:d1b9f623-da99-48b4-9cb5-affa8d33d709
endstream
endobj
xref
2 1
0000099668 00000 n
4 1
0000099730 00000 n
12 1
0000104789 00000 n
15 1
0000108261 00000 n
19 1
0000112332 00000 n
22 1
0000116053 00000 n
25 1
0000120120 00000 n
28 1
0000123673 00000 n
32 1
0000128043 00000 n
35 1
0000132605 00000 n
38 1
0000137244 00000 n
41 1
0000141472 00000 n
44 1
0000145902 00000 n
47 1
0000150293 00000 n
51 1
0000155107 00000 n
54 1
0000159756 00000 n
57 1
0000164292 00000 n
60 1
0000168242 00000 n
63 1
0000173262 00000 n
66 1
0000177126 00000 n
81 2
0000180162 00000 n
0000180478 00000 n
trailer
<<78B85609DF7742438B8EAF5E5F63F5F4>]/Prev 97957 >>
startxref
184298
%%EOF
82 0 obj
<>stream
Tuesday May 1, 2007 11:21:55
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-05-13T14:42:54-06:00
2008-01-29T12:53:05-07:00
2008-05-13T14:42:54-06:00
application/pdf
Aleman v. Chugach Support Services, Inc.
uuid:7aa0c7f8-d9ec-4aff-848a-5155d92efc1e
uuid:d2a2dedf-6017-4090-b418-10fb92ba7c6b
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
82 2
0000185025 00000 n
0000188766 00000 n
trailer
<<862CA196591A3F4CBBF4E40614BE233A>]/Prev 184298 >>
startxref
189001
%%EOF