contractual rights under a collective-bargaining agreement and individual statutory rights.” Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 35, 111 S.Ct. at 1657. Defendant would first require the plaintiffs to arbitrate both their contractual and statutory claims, as the plaintiff in Gilmer was required to do. Defendant next argues that even if the plaintiffs had some right to have their statutory claims heard in court, they must first complete the arbitration process. In this case, however, the plaintiffs’ claims do not implicate the contract. As explained earlier, the contract language simply does not encompass all disputes arising out of employment. Under this framework, there is no basis for requiring plaintiffs to complete arbitration prior to bringing their statutory claims. See Claps, 819 F.Supp. at 147 (<HOLDING>). Adams, 843 F.Supp. at 691. The Court declines
holding that plaintiffs failure to exhaust available grievance procedures does not bar her title vii claims holding that prisoners noncompliance with written grievance procedures did not constitute a failure to exhaust since prison officials had told him that written procedures were not accurate holding that the plra mandates that prisoners exhaust internal prison grievance procedures before filing suit emphasis added holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration