Gaspar Salas v. GE Oil & Gas
857 F.3d 278
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Salas, formerly employed by Dresser (later acquired by GE), agreed initially to arbitrate disputes; GE later implemented a new arbitration program (Solutions) and informed employees continuing after Nov. 1, 2013 would be bound; Salas continued employment.
- Salas sued GE in federal court (June 2014) alleging Title VII discrimination and retaliation; GE moved to compel arbitration.
- The district court granted GE’s motion and dismissed the case without prejudice (Dec. 2014).
- The parties did not proceed to arbitration; each blamed the other for delay.
- Salas filed a motion (Feb. 2016) to compel arbitration; following a telephonic conference the district court issued an order (Mar. 30, 2016) withdrawing its prior order compelling arbitration and reopened the case; GE’s reconsideration motion was denied and GE appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has appellate jurisdiction over the March 30, 2016 order | Salas: order was not a denial of a motion to compel; GE really appealed denial of reconsideration | GE: FAA §16(a)(1)(C) permits appeal from denial of an application to compel arbitration; its reconsideration tolls appeal time | Court: appellate jurisdiction exists under 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1)(C); motion for reconsideration tolled appeal time |
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to withdraw its prior order compelling arbitration and reopen the case after dismissal | Salas: GE waived arbitration by conduct; court could address alleged failure to arbitrate | GE: once case was dismissed after compelling arbitration, court lacked jurisdiction except to enforce/arbitrate | Court: district court lacked jurisdiction to withdraw order and reopen; FAA limits pre-award judicial intervention to validating/enforcing arbitration agreement |
| Whether GE waived its right to arbitrate | Salas: GE’s conduct caused waiver by invoking litigation or delay | GE: did not substantially invoke judicial process; no prejudice to Salas | Court: waiver not shown; strong presumption against waiver—GE did not substantially invoke judicial process |
| Scope of district court authority on remand | Salas: court may address alleged failures in arbitral process | GE: court should be limited to agreement validity/enforcement | Court: on remand court limited to determining whether an arbitration agreement exists and enforcing it; cannot adjudicate pre-award disputes about arbitral process |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss v. First Premier Bank, 835 F.3d 260 (2d Cir.) (recognizing appellate jurisdiction where a court vacated prior order compelling arbitration)
- Koveleskie v. SBC Capital Mkts., Inc., 167 F.3d 361 (7th Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction over district court refusal to compel arbitration evident from record)
- Van Dusen v. Swift Transp. Co., 830 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing case management orders from final denials of motions to compel arbitration)
- Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 304 F.3d 476 (5th Cir.) (FAA limits pre-award judicial intervention to determining existence/enforcement of arbitration agreements)
- Adam Techs. Int’l S.A. de C.V. v. Sutherland Glob. Servs., Inc., 729 F.3d 443 (5th Cir.) (ancillary jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator or ensure dismissal-to-arbitration is not thwarted)
- Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 757 F.3d 416 (5th Cir.) (strong presumption against waiver of arbitration)
- Republic Ins. v. PAICO Receivables, LLC, 383 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.) (waiver standard for arbitration rights)
- Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distrib. Co., 781 F.2d 494 (5th Cir.) (two-part test for waiver: substantial invocation of judicial process plus prejudice)