resolved only the contractual violations alleged by plaintiff, and the “distinctly separate nature of [his] contractual and statutory rights [was] not vitiated merely because both were violated as a result of the same factual occurrence.” Id. at 49, 94 S.Ct. 1011. The preclusive doctrines of election of remedies, waiver, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were therefore inapplicable “in light of the collective-bargaining agreement’s failure to address arbitration of Title VII claims.” 14 Penn Plaza, 129 S.Ct. at 1467 (explaining the reasoning behind Gardner-Denver's holding); see also Gardner-Denver, 415 U.S. at 50 n. 10, 94 S.Ct. 1011 (“The policy reasons for rejecting the doctrines of election of remedies and waiver in the context of 70, 80, 119 S.Ct. 391, 142 L.Ed.2d 361 (1998) (<HOLDING>); 14 Penn Plaza, 129 S.Ct. 1456 (2009) (holding
holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding unionnegotiated waiver of employees right to judicial forum for statutory claims must be clear and unmistakable holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver