Marshall v. SSC Nashville Operating Co.
686 F. App'x 348
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Peggy Marshall, a 65-year-old rehabilitation-program manager for SAVA (hired 2007, terminated 2014), alleged age-based pay discrimination and wrongful termination under the ADEA and Tennessee Human Rights Act.
- Marshall earned $81,329 at termination; younger replacement Amy McCann started at $100,800; other peers earned between ~$82k–$116k. Marshall did not request a pay adjustment while employed.
- After filing suit, Marshall and SAVA agreed to arbitrate both claims; an arbitrator held a hearing and denied both claims, finding salary differences resulted from individual negotiation and legitimate business decisions.
- Marshall moved in district court to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s award on the wage-discrimination claim, arguing (1) arbitrator exceeded his powers by misapplying law, (2) manifest disregard of law/clear public policy, and (3) evident material mistake in factual description (relying chiefly on Hayworth’s testimony that she did not know why salaries differed).
- The district court denied the motion, finding the arbitrator reasonably credited Lindsey’s testimony about negotiation and market adjustments over Hayworth’s vaguer answers; Marshall appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the FAA’s narrow review of arbitration awards and concluding Marshall failed to meet the statutory or manifest-disregard standards to vacate or modify the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded powers by misapplying ADEA/THRA to wage-discrimination claim | Marshall: Arbitrator ignored evidence (Hayworth’s statements) showing unexplained pay disparity and thus misapplied law | SAVA: Arbitrator acted within authority; credible testimony (Lindsey) supported non-discriminatory reasons (negotiation, market/location, experience) | Arbitrator did not exceed powers; credibility choices permissible and within arbitrator’s authority |
| Whether award should be vacated for manifest disregard of law | Marshall: Arbitrator’s conclusion flouts clearly established legal principles on wage discrimination | SAVA: No established legal principle was ignored; decision does not "fly in the face" of precedent | Manifest-disregard standard not met; decision was not contrary to clearly established law |
| Whether there was an evident material mistake in factual description warranting modification | Marshall: Award misstated or omitted key facts (Hayworth’s testimony) supporting discrimination | SAVA: Factual findings supported by testimonial record; arbitrator’s factual determinations binding absent clear error | No evident material mistake; arbitrator’s factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether judicial review should overturn arbitrator for serious error | Marshall: Serious error in weighing evidence justifies vacatur | SAVA: FAA mandates extreme deference; even serious error is insufficient | Court: Even if serious error existed, FAA precludes overturning absent statutory vacatur grounds; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (standard for judicial review of arbitrator factual and legal determinations)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (arbitrator must be at least arguably construing the contract to be upheld)
- Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) (9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11 provide exclusive grounds for vacatur/modification)
- Lattimer-Stevens Co. v. United Steelworkers, 913 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir. 1990) (describing narrow federal court review of arbitration awards)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 278 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2002) (arbitration-review deference principles)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 429 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2005) (FAA presumption favoring confirmation of arbitration awards)
- Jaros v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 70 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 1995) (manifest-disregard doctrine elements remain viable in Sixth Circuit)
- Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) (factors for comparing similarly situated employees in wage-discrimination claims)