Donald Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, 66 F.4th 1099

Kinsella, a Baker Hughes field operator, suffered work-related knee injuries and was medically restricted to sedentary work; HR (Martinez) conducted an interactive process and advised reassignment since his prior job was incompatible.
Baker Hughes gave Kinsella a 30-day window to seek alternative positions; Martinez extended deadlines but Kinsella missed them and later applied for a dispatcher role without confirmed extension; a non-disabled employee was hired.
Baker Hughes terminated Kinsella for failure to apply timely, then began reinstatement discussions after he produced an application receipt; reinstatement talks later stalled.
Kinsella sued under the ADA (failure-to-accommodate, discriminatory discharge, retaliation), the case was stayed for arbitration, and the arbitrator granted Baker Hughes summary judgment on all claims.
Kinsella moved in district court to vacate the arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), arguing the arbitrator improperly added discriminatory intent as an element of his ADA failure-to-accommodate claim; the district court denied vacatur and entered final judgment.
On appeal Kinsella challenged vacatur denial and Baker Hughes sought Rule 38 sanctions; the court also considered jurisdictional implications of Badgerow but found federal jurisdiction existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers by requiring proof of discriminatory intent for an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim	Arbitrator added an extra element—discriminatory intent—beyond the statutory elements	Arbitrator merely applied ADA law and considered intent only when allocating fault for a breakdown in the interactive process	Court: No excess of power; arbitrator mentioned intent only to apportion fault in the interactive process, not as a new element
Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to decide vacatur given Badgerow	Implicit challenge that look-through jurisdiction might be improper here	Underlying suit was originally filed in federal court (ADA) and parties pleaded diversity later; district court retained jurisdiction to rule on vacatur	Court: Jurisdiction proper (federal-question and diversity available); Badgerow does not bar review here
Whether Rule 38 sanctions are warranted for a frivolous appeal	Appeal was frivolous because Kinsella misread the award and raised a baseless claim	Appeal presented a colorable (though unsuccessful) legal argument; no evidence of vexatious motive	Court: Denied sanctions—argument was colorable and not frivolous

Badgerow v. Walters, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) (no look-through jurisdiction for FAA §§9–10 applications)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (look-through jurisdiction for §4 under its statutory language)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (standard of appellate review for arbitrator decisions: de novo legal, clear-error factual)
Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013) (judicial review of arbitration awards is narrowly cabined)
Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 982 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2020) (elements of ADA failure-to-accommodate claim)
Beck v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996) (interactive process breakdown; allocate responsibility for failures)
Edstrom Indus., Inc. v. Companion Life Ins. Co., 516 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2008) (vacatur where arbitrator applied law contrary to parties’ agreement)
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Local Union No. 744, 280 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2002) (arbitrator cannot ignore clear contract terms)
Tootsie Roll Indus., Inc. v. Local Union No. 1, 832 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1987) (arbitrator exceeding the scope of the agreement can warrant vacatur)
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (serious legal errors by arbitrators are not grounds for vacatur when within their interpretive authority)