v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 468 F.2d 1201, 1203 (2d Cir. 1972). There is no reason why the rule of Williamson should not be applied in this case. Finally, even if plaintiffs were parties to the Human Rights action, it does not automatically follow that the doctrine of res judicata should be invoked to bar the present action. Title VII, as explicated by the Supreme Court, manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes. The clear inference is that Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 48-49, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019-20, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) (<HOLDING>). While the Court of Appeals of this Circuit
holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union holding that absent a law or collective bargaining agreement a municipal employee is an employee atwill holding that an arbitrators decision in arbitration undertaken pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is not binding on a plaintiff who pursues title vii remedies in court holding that antidiscrimination rights under title vii cannot be waived by a collective bargaining agreement holding that an employee does not forfeit his title vii right of action if he first seeks relief under an arbitration clause in his collective bargaining agreement