that exist independent of the collective bargaining agreement.” Hawaiian Airlines, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2250. The CBA in this case provides that “[a]ny dispute involving the interpretation or application of any of the terms of this agreement ... may be referred by either party ... to a committee.” The CBA also contains a “NonDiscrimination” rule, providing that “[t]hese rules will be applied by the parties in compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations and without regard to ... religion ... of the individuals covered by the rules.” Defendant argues that because the CBA provides for arbitration of claims of religious discrimination, and because Felt seeks only contractually guaranteed benefits and remedies, ert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 550, 126 L.Ed.2d 452 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Defendant relies upon the more expansive
holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act holding under 29 usc  216c holding that the arbitration procedures prescribed under the rla are not appellants sole forums for resolution of their claims under the federal rehabilitation act 29 usc  794 holding rehabilitation act applicable holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act