of law. The relationship between an employer’s obligations under its collective bargaining agreement and potentially conflicting obligations under an anti-discrimination statute like Title VII is more complex than the district court’s decision indicates. Title VII and collective bargaining agreements each represent important congressional policies: preventing discrimination in the workplace, and “effecting workable and enforceable agreements between management and labor,” Trans World Airlines, 432 U.S. at 79, 97 5.Ct. 2264. Given the important national policies underlying both Title VII and collective bargaining agreements, it is incorrect to hold, as the district court did, that obligations under Title VII always trump obligations that exist under valid labor agreements. See id. (<HOLDING>); Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 94 F.3d
holding no violation of title vii by the union in refusing to alter its seniority lists to accommodate a sabbatarian holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that an agreedupon seniority system did not give way to an employers duty to reasonably accommodate religious observance under title vii holding that there is no individual liability under title vii