•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

407

Document Type

Article

Abstract

This article looks at the evolution of the public policy doctrine and its effects on Title VII when unionized employees are dismissed for harassment. Some writers have questioned whether the Court eliminated the public policy exception by defining it so narrowly. But, the focus of commentary has been on the effects of the Eastern decision in the traditional collective bargaining context where the need to limit judicial involvement is great. However, the public policy doctrine's impact is no longer limited to traditional contract issues that are unregulated. As a result, the doctrine's impact on the operation and goals of Title VII is worth addressing. Part I of the article traces the evolution of the public policy doctrine from its common law commercial roots to its application in the collective bargaining or labor relations context. This part shows how courts historically balanced the interests of private bargainers and the public interest in order to determine whether a contract should be enforced. Part II looks at the application of the public policy exception to collective bargaining contracts. This part shows a clear and well-defined public policy articulated by Congress and the judiciary to prioritize the contract and its arbitration provisions over judicial notions of justice. To achieve this, the public policy exception to contract enforcement was narrowly defined, and this has worked well to insulate the private bargain from judicial review. Part III of the article shows the operation of the public policy doctrine in the Title VII context. Title VII requires that employers take corrective action against harassers and reserves an important role for judicial resolution of discrimination disputes. This part evaluates whether the doctrine frustrates these goals by insulating arbitral awards that reinstate harassers fired to rid the workplace of discrimination. Part III shows that Title VII does not evidence a public policy to discharge all harassers, and that arbitrators reinstating harassers usually impose some form of discipline which is consistent with Title VII's command of corrective action. Part III also shows arbitrators consider the dictates of Title VII and its goal of protecting workers from discrimination, in addition to the contractual interests of the grievant. By doing this, discrimination victims get the kind of protection Congress envisioned the judiciary would grant, and therefore no public policy is frustrated.

Download

Share

COinS