Whether the RLA's mandatory arbitration requirement applies to federal statutory claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Railway Labor Act (RLA) requires mandatory arbitration of disputes between employers and employees in the railroad and airline industries if they require “the interpretation or application” of a agreement (CBA) and “concern[] rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” 45 U.S.C. §§ 153(), 181, 184. In Hawatian Airlines v. Norris, the Court held that this “mandatory arbitral mechanism” preempts any “state-law claim” that is so “dependent on the interpretation of a CBA” that it can be “conclusively resolved” by that interpretation. 512 U.S. 246, 252, 260, 263 (1994) (internal quotation omitted). The circuits conflict over whether the RLA’s mandatory arbitral mechanism, and Norris’s rule for preemption of state-law claims, applies to claims brought under federal law. The circuits also divide over whether Norris extends beyond the CBA-dependent “claim[s]” Norris mentions, id. at 260, to CBA-dependent defenses. And they divide further over Norris’s application to the Title VII claims at issue in this case, because Respondent insists that the CBA must be interpreted to determine whether Petitioner’s requested accommodation imposes “undue hardship.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). But the circuits are divided over whether the “undue hardship” inquiry in a Title VII case is an affirmative defense or not. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether, and under what circumstances, claims arising under federal statute are subject to the RLA’s mandatory arbitration requirement. 2. Whether the “undue hardship” inquiry in a Title VII case is an affirmative defense to liability. ce) STATEMENT OF