United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
708 F. App'x 330
9th Cir.2017Background
- UTU and Richard Kite appealed district court judgment for BNSF after a stipulated bench trial about whether corruption tainted the mandatory arbitration that upheld Kite’s discharge.
- This appeal followed a prior Ninth Circuit remand directing the district court to determine, by clear and convincing evidence, whether corruption occurred during the arbitration and, if so, the appropriate remedy.
- The district court conducted factfinding focused on whether the arbitration process was corrupted and concluded UTU failed to prove corruption by clear and convincing evidence.
- Key credibility determinations included accepting arbitrator Jacalyn Zimmerman’s testimony (including her explanation that a draft award reflected a belief in a pending settlement) over UTU’s challenges and finding Roger Boldra’s statements did not cause Zimmerman’s recusal.
- UTU argued the district court improperly re-litigated the merits, miscredited witnesses, failed to address certain evidence, should have allowed calling BNSF’s counsel, and that the judge should have sua sponte recused for bias; the court rejected each challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court exceeded its remand authority by deciding merits rather than corruption | District court examined merits, not limited corruption issues | Court followed remand instructions to resolve whether corruption occurred and remedy | Court held district court stayed within remand scope; did not exceed jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of proof of corruption in arbitration | UTU: clear and convincing evidence showed arbitration was corrupted | BNSF: UTU failed to prove corruption by clear and convincing evidence | Court held UTU failed to meet clear-and-convincing standard; affirm judgment for BNSF |
| Credibility of arbitrator Zimmerman and effect of alleged inconsistencies | UTU: Zimmerman gave inconsistent/self-serving statements undermining credibility | BNSF: Zimmerman’s testimony coherent; district court reasonably credited her | Court deferred to district court; credibility finding for Zimmerman not clearly erroneous |
| Judicial recusal for bias (sua sponte) | UTU: Judge’s comments showed bias warranting recusal | BNSF: Comments did not meet high Liteky standard; no plain error | Court held no plain error; recusal not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United Transp. Union v. BNSF Ry. Co., 710 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2013) (prior panel remand directing factual resolution of corruption and remedy)
- L.A. Police Protective League v. Gates, 995 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court remains within jurisdiction when complying with remand instructions)
- United States v. Haswood, 350 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (permissible to credit one coherent witness over another absent extrinsic contradiction)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (clear-error standard for district court factual findings)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (appellate review limits where district court’s account of evidence is plausible)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (recusal standard: deep-seated favoritism or antagonism required)
- United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review applies when party failed to move for recusal)