James Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4561
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Freeman, former director of operations at PPG Auto Glass (div. of PPG Inds.), sues PGW in WD Pa for age discrimination.
- Arbitration agreement entered after discovery; district court directed case to arbitration and closed the case.
- Lally-Green was selected as arbitrator; she had disclosed some ties to PPG Inds. and taught a labor law seminar with a PPG attorney.
- Arbitrator issued a lengthy award adverse to Freeman; Freeman moved to vacate under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) and (a)(1) claiming partiality and fraud.
- District Court denied Freeman’s motion, holding disclosures immaterial and no evident partiality; Freeman appeals.
- Questions arise whether the district court’s administrative closing preserved jurisdiction and whether Freeman waived a partiality challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to hear the motion to vacate after administrative closing? | Freeman | PGW | District court retained jurisdiction; noted administrative closing preserved jurisdiction to decide motion. |
| What standard governs 'evident partiality' under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2)? | Freeman | PGW | Arbitrator is evidently partial when a reasonable person would necessarily conclude bias; adopts Kaplan/Morelite approach, not mere appearance. |
| Do undisclosed campaign contributions from PPG Industries establish evident partiality? | Freeman | PGW | No; contributions were public and relatively small; not evidence of evident partiality. |
| Do teaching ties between Lally-Green and Mack create evident partiality? | Freeman | PGW | No; professional relationship alone does not establish evident partiality under the standard. |
| Was Freeman's fraudulent-inducement claim viable to vacate the award? | Freeman | PGW | Fraudulent-inducement claim fails because Freeman cannot prove the required elements, including causation and intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968) (discusses appearance vs. evi-dent partiality and disclosure norms for arbitrators)
- Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc., 19 F.3d 1503 (3d Cir. 1994) (adopts the Kaplan standard: evident partiality requires a-conclu-sively biased conclusion)
- Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefits Funds, 748 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1984) (rejects appearance standard; supports its own evident-partiality framework)
- Penn West Associates v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2004) (administrative closing discussed; no finality; court may reopen case)
- WRS, Inc. v. Plaza Entertainment, 402 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 2005) (administrative closing lacks jurisdictional effect; permits reopening)
- Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2000) (arises in arbitration context; contrast finality of dismissals vs stay/arbitration entry)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1945) (dispatches discussion on whether administrative closings can mature into final orders)