Kevin McGee v. Thomas Armstrong, 941 F.3d 859

Kevin McGee was a management employee of the Summit County Board of Developmental Disabilities under renewable one-year contracts (hired 2002, terminated 2012) that included a broad arbitration clause for disputes over removal/suspension/demotion.
McGee joined the Ohio Army National Guard in 2008; a dispute arose over military leave pay when Board policy limited paid military leave to 176 hours per year but an earlier contract provision referenced "31 days"; the Board ultimately paid differential pay when leave exceeded 176 hours.
The Board circulated two versions of the 2011–12 contract (one specifying "31 days," a revised one stating "military leave in accordance with Ohio law"); McGee did not sign either but continued working and accepted differential pay for part of his 2012 leave.
McGee was placed on pre-disciplinary notice after returning from military leave and then terminated; he sued for wrongful termination, contract breaches, and military-discrimination/retaliation (including § 1983 claims).
District Court compelled arbitration for most claims, the arbitrator found the contested claims arbitrable and granted summary judgment for defendants; the district court later denied vacatur of the award and granted summary judgment for defendants on remaining breach-of-contract claims; McGee appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in compelling arbitration of certain claims	McGee argued specific claims (first, fifth, fourteenth, and § 1983 claims) were not arbitrable	The contract delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator via an AAA rule and an express contract clause	Court: Delegation clause is "clear and unmistakable"; under Henry Schein courts must defer arbitrability questions to arbitrator; no error in compelling arbitration
Whether the district court should have vacated the arbitrator’s summary-judgment award	McGee argued arbitrator lacked power to grant summary judgment and thus exceeded authority under Ohio law	Defendants: AAA rules permit dispositive motions; arbitrator acted within the parties’ agreed procedures	Court: Denied vacatur; arbitrator had authority per AAA rules to decide dispositive motions
Whether defendants breached the employment contract (military leave and other benefits)	McGee claimed Board failed to pay contractual military leave and omitted contractual benefits (professional time, sick, vacation)	Defendants: The 2011–12 contract incorporated Ohio law (176-hour month); McGee acquiesced to and was paid under those terms; benefits argument was not timely or supported	Court: Summary judgment for defendants; no breach shown as to military leave and benefits claims were waived/unsupported

Huffman v. Hilltop Companies, LLC, 747 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of arbitrability and motion to compel arbitration)
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (FAA applies to employment contracts with arbitration provisions)
Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2000) (framework for courts deciding whether to compel arbitration)
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (arbitrability is for courts unless parties clearly and unmistakably delegate it)
Turi v. Main Street Adoption Servs., LLP, 633 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2011) (prior Sixth Circuit approach limiting delegation to claims at least arguably covered; later abrogated by Henry Schein)
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (Supreme Court: courts must enforce clear delegation clauses and refer arbitrability to arbitrator even if arguments are "wholly groundless")
Samaan v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 835 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for district court decisions confirming/vacating arbitration awards)
Way Bakery v. Truck Drivers Local No. 164, 363 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2004) (arbitration-award review is narrowly circumscribed)
Baker v. City of Trenton, 936 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of district court summary-judgment rulings)
McDaniel v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., 893 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2018) (arguments not raised below are waived on appeal)