Nicole Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Construction, 946 F.3d 837

Quezada worked for Bechtel on a construction project and agreed to Bechtel’s Employee Dispute Resolution Program (DRP), which required AAA arbitration and specified application of the substantive law that would govern in the federal district court where arbitration occurred.
Quezada filed an ADA arbitration claiming discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; arbitrator held a three-day evidentiary hearing in Houston and issued an interim award (nominal damages $500).
After reconsideration, the arbitrator’s final award found discrimination and failure to accommodate (based on denial of overtime) and awarded back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, fees and interest, plus AAA fees and arbitrator compensation to be borne by Bechtel.
Bechtel moved in federal district court to vacate or modify the award under the FAA, arguing the arbitrator exceeded authority because the award awarded pay and damages inconsistent with its finding that termination was not unlawful and that reconsideration was impermissible.
The district court concluded it had federal-question jurisdiction via a look-through to the underlying ADA claims and denied vacatur, confirming the award; Bechtel appealed.
The Fifth Circuit majority affirmed, adopting the view that §§ 9–11 motions are subject to Vaden’s look-through approach and holding Bechtel failed to show a statutory FAA ground for vacatur; Judge Ho dissented on jurisdictional (textualist) grounds.

Issue	Quezada's Argument	Bechtel's Argument	Held
Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over post-award FAA motions (§§9–11) when the underlying dispute raises federal questions	Post-award motions should be subject to the same look-through approach as §4; underlying ADA claim gives federal-question jurisdiction	§§9–11 lack §4’s "save for" language; absent textual basis, federal jurisdiction is not available for post-award motions	Majority: Adopt look-through for §§9–11; district court had jurisdiction because underlying ADA claims raise federal questions. Dissent: would dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the arbitration award must be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded authority or impermissibly reconsidered an interim award	Award should be confirmed; arbitrator acted within DRP authority and rules permitting reconsideration	Arbitrator exceeded authority by awarding back/front pay, compensatory damages and fees inconsistent with its own factual/legal findings and by granting reconsideration contrary to procedural rules	Court: Denied vacatur. Arbitrator was within scope; legal or factual errors alone do not justify vacatur under FAA §10(a)(4).

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (arbitration agreements enforceable under FAA)
Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (FAA is not an independent jurisdictional grant; §10 grounds are exclusive)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (adopted look-through approach for §4 petitions)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (federal jurisdiction principles concerning arbitration)
McCormick v. Am. Online, Inc., 909 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. adopting look-through for §§9–11)
Doscher v. Sea Port Grp. Sec., LLC, 832 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. adopting look-through for §§9–11)
Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Sec. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 852 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. adopting look-through for §§9–11)
Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 834 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. declining look-through for §§9–11)
Magruder v. Fid. Brokerage Servs. LLC, 818 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. declining look-through for §§9–11)
Citigroup Glob. Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. — manifest-disregard doctrine rejected post-Hall Street)
United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (federal courts defer to arbitrator’s factual and legal findings)
Am. Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Intern., 343 F.3d 401 (ambiguities about arbitrator authority resolved in arbitrator’s favor)
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 531 U.S. 57 (arbitrator acting within scope merits deferential review)