Short v. Resource Title Agency, Inc.
2014 Ohio 830
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Linda Short was hired under a 3-year employment agreement with Resource Title; she alleged salary was unilaterally reduced and she was later terminated.
- Short sued for breach of contract and related claims; Resource Title and individual officers moved to arbitrate most claims per the employment agreement; court stayed litigation and ordered arbitration.
- An arbitrator found Short was terminated without just cause and awarded her the remainder of the base salary for the three-year term.
- Resource Title moved in common pleas court to vacate the arbitration award; the court vacated the award in part, concluding the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding the full remaining salary instead of the contractually limited severance.
- Short appealed, arguing the trial court had an overly limited scope of review, that lack of an arbitration transcript required affirmance, and that the trial court improperly used App.R. 9(C) to compile a record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by awarding full remaining salary | Short: arbitrator was final factfinder; court may not vacate award absent narrow statutory grounds | Resource Title: award conflicts with employment agreement’s severance cap and thus exceeds arbitrator’s power | Court: vacatur proper — award did not "draw its essence" from contract because it ignored the severance provision |
| Whether absence of transcript requires presumption of regularity and affirmance | Short: lack of official record means trial court must presume regularity and uphold award | Resource Title: contract itself (before arbitrator) shows award conflicts with contract; transcript not required to resolve this issue | Court: no presumption applies when the contract on its face demonstrates the award departs from the agreement |
| Use of App.R. 9(C) to assemble record of arbitration exhibits | Short: trial court erred by adopting exhibits via App.R. 9(C) and creating incomplete/ inaccurate record | Resource Title: assembled exhibits were relevant and Short was given chance to object | Court: trial court misapplied App.R. 9(C) but any error was harmless because the contract alone supported vacatur |
| Cross-assignments by appellees (seeking broader relief) | N/A (appellees) | Appellees argued additional errors to preserve alternative relief | Court: cross-assignments function as cross-appeal and were not properly before court because appellees did not file a separate notice of appeal; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear v. Local Union No. 200, 42 Ohio St.2d 516 (Ohio 1975) (arbitrator generally final judge of law and facts)
- Findlay City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 1990) (arbitration award presumed valid)
- Queen City Lodge No. 69 v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 1992) (award must "draw its essence" from agreement)
- Internatl. Assn. of Firefighters, Local 67 v. Columbus, 95 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 2002) (arbitrator confined to interpreting agreement as written)
- Amalgamated Transit Union v. S.W. Ohio Regional Transit Auth., 190 Ohio App.3d 679 (Ohio App.) (award departs from agreement when it conflicts with express terms or lacks rational support)
- Huber Hts. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 73 Ohio App.3d 68 (Ohio App. 1991) (arbitrator exceeded authority when award inconsistent with collective-bargaining agreement)