512 F. App'x 71
2d Cir.2013Background
- Giller petitions to vacate an arbitration award arising from an employment dispute with Oracle USA, Inc.
- The district court in SDNY granted Oracle’s motion to dismiss the petition to vacate on February 13, 2012.
- The arbitrator denied Giller’s breach of contract and discrimination claims; Giller alleged manifest disregard of the law.
- The Second Circuit reviews petitions to vacate arbitral awards de novo on questions of law and for clear error on factual findings, with very limited review of awards.
- The court affirms the district court, finding no egregious impropriety and no grounds to vacate under the FAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in denying breach of contract | Giller claims the arbitrator failed to address a separate covenant claim | Oracle contends the contract terms sufficed for denial | No egregious impropriety; grounds for vacatur not met |
| Interpretation of 'Sales Target' including anticipated orders | Giller argues misinterpretation of contract term | Arbitrator reasonably interpreted 'Sales Target' to include future orders | Arbitrator’s contract interpretation allowed; not vacated |
| Constructive discharge and age discrimination evidence | Arbitrator misapplied standard or found incorrect facts | Evidence did not meet constructive discharge; disputed evaluation is not vacatur ground | No manifest disregard; not vacated on evidence evaluation |
| Discrimination grounds aside from constructive discharge | Arbitrator erred in finding no age-based discrimination | Arbitrator evaluated evidence; not a basis for vacatur | No basis to vacate based on evidentiary assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Wakefield v. North Telecom, Inc., 769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985) (implied covenant not separate from contract claims; two paths to breach)
- Duferco Int'l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 2003) (text on highly limited grounds for vacatur; exceed powers)
- T.Co. Metals, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2010) (heavy burden for manifest disregard; rare egregious impropriety)
- ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. EMC Nat’l Life Co., 564 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2009) (arbitrary or defective grounds for vacatur suppressed)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (contract interpretation review is limited; not reweighed)
- Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons W.L.L. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 1997) (arbitrator contract interpretation within scope; not disturbed on manifest disregard)
- Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2002) (arbitrator’s interpretation not subject to challenge under manifest disregard)
- Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2004) (evidence evaluation not vacatur ground)
- Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012) (limits of review for arbitration awards)