Lemma v. York & Chapel, Corp., 204 Conn.App. 471

Background

Dominic Lemma (employee) and York & Chapel, Corp. (employer) had an executive employment agreement with an arbitration clause covering “any dispute arising directly or indirectly” under the agreement; the clause barred awards of special, consequential, or punitive damages.
Lemma alleged wrongful termination in August 2018, unpaid salary, unreimbursed expenses, and a large termination payment; he demanded arbitration with AAA seeking about $35,450 plus double damages, fees, and costs under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72.
An arbitration hearing was scheduled for May 22–23, 2019; respondent’s lead counsel requested continuances due to a close friend’s death and missed the hearing, although colleagues appeared.
The arbitrator heard the case on May 23, 2019, and awarded Lemma $40,320.55 in damages (including a termination payment and doubled wages under § 31-72) and ordered the respondent to pay one-half of AAA fees; the arbitrator also awarded costs/attorney’s fees under § 31-72.
York & Chapel moved to vacate or modify the award, arguing (1) arbitrator misconduct for denying continuance, (2) award exceeded the demand amount, (3) arbitrator exceeded authority on fees and attorney’s fees, and (4) double damages under § 31-72 are not available in arbitration.
The Superior Court (Pierson, J.) denied the motion to vacate, sustained Lemma’s objection, and granted confirmation of the arbitration award.

Issues

Issue	Lemma's Argument	York & Chapel's Argument	Held
1) Did arbitrator misconduct occur by denying the second continuance request?	Arbitrator properly balanced prejudice and denied continuance; denial was within discretion.	Denial was misconduct under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑418(a)(3) and prejudiced respondent.	Denial was within arbitrator’s discretion; no misconduct and no substantial prejudice shown.
2) Could arbitrator award more than amount listed in claimant’s AAA demand?	Demand amount is a guide only; submission is defined by contract §11(f), not the demand form.	Award exceeded the claim amount on the demand and thus exceeded arbitrator’s authority.	Award fell within the broad contractual submission; arbitrator did not exceed authority.
3) Did arbitrator exceed powers by apportioning arbitration fees and awarding attorney’s fees?	Fees/costs awarded under §31‑72 and within unrestricted submission; any legal error is not reviewable absent manifest disregard.	Award reformed contract fee provisions without evidence and contradicted agreement.	Arbitrator’s fee rulings conformed to submission; no manifest disregard of law proven.
4) Could arbitrator award doubled wages under §31‑72 in arbitration (is arbitration a "civil action")?	§31‑72’s remedies (double damages, fees) may be awarded; prior Connecticut cases sanction double damages in arbitration.	§31‑72 refers to a "civil action" so double damages are unavailable in arbitration.	Novel legal question; prior precedent implies arbitration can yield §31‑72 relief; no manifest disregard shown, so award of double damages was within arbitrator’s power.

Key Cases Cited

O & G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3, 203 Conn. 133 (Conn. 1987) (endorse minimal judicial intervention and presumptive validity of arbitration awards)
Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (Conn. 2006) (arbitral misconduct requires showing of prejudice; limits on judicial review)
Board of Education v. New Milford Education Assn., 331 Conn. 524 (Conn. 2019) (scope of review for arbitration awards; manifest-disregard standard)
Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (Conn. 2005) (double damages under §31‑72 may be awarded in arbitration; contract ambiguity resolved against employer)
Quinn Associates, Inc. v. Borkowski, 41 Conn. Supp. 17 (Conn. Super. Ct.) (award amount on demand form is a guide, not a submission limit)
Lathuras v. Shoreline Dental Care, LLC, 65 Conn. App. 509 (Conn. App. 2001) (manifest-disregard standard is narrow; courts won’t substitute their contract interpretation for arbitrator’s)