1:20-cv-00423
D. Colo.Aug 3, 2022Background
- Waetzig sued Halliburton Energy Services in Colorado federal court alleging age discrimination under the ADEA (Case No. 20-cv-00423-KLM).
- Case was temporarily dismissed to pursue arbitration under a JAMS process per the parties’ agreement.
- Arbitrator Florine L. Clark conducted a June 2, 2021 telephone hearing on Halliburton’s summary-judgment motion; the hearing was not recorded.
- Arbitrator Clark entered an Order granting summary judgment, but provided no explanation for the ruling.
- Waetzig sought to vacate the arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 10 and the FAA, arguing failure to provide notice and to record the hearing, and other contract-based defects.
- Court grants Waetzig’s motion to vacate the award, remands for arbitration consistent with the Agreement, and holds Arbitrator Clark functus officio; new arbitrator to be selected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to vacate is properly before the court | Waetzig’s motion seeks FAA vacatur of an arbitration award. | Arbitration agreement channels relief to arbitration, not to the court; motion timing disputed. | Motion is properly before the court under FAA/Agreement. |
| Whether Arbitrator Clark’s Order constitutes an “award” and timeliness of the motion | Order should be treated as an award for timing purposes under JAMS Rule 24(k). | Order labeled as an 'order' not an 'award'; timeliness should track §12 deadline. | Order is an award for purposes of the FAA; September 2021 filing timely under JAMS Rule 24(k). |
| Whether Arbitrator Clark exceeded her powers by failing to issue essential findings and by procedural defects | Arbitrator failed to provide essential findings and violated notice/recording requirements, exceeding powers. | Conferences vs. hearings distinguished; no violation if proceeding was a conference; no obligation to specific record. | Arbitrator exceeded powers and violated the contract and rules; vacatur granted. |
| Whether functus officio applies and whether remand should be to Clark or a new arbitrator | functus officio prevents further action; remand to same arbitrator possible for corrections. | functus officio applies due to finality of award; need for new arbitrator due to procedural defects. | functus officio applies; new arbitrator required; remand to arbitration with a properly conducted hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2001) (highly deferential review of arbitration awards under FAA)
- Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1989) (contractual control over arbitration procedures; enforceability of agreed rules)
- Mid Atl. Cap. Corp. v. Bien, 956 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2020) (fully explained awards may be contracted for under FAA)
- Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 186 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1999) (functus officio and continuing authority concepts in arbitration)
- W. Emps. Ins. Co. v. Jefferies & Co., 958 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1992) (arbitrator’s authority limits when failing to follow contract terms)
- United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Ideal Cement Co., 762 F.2d 837 (10th Cir. 1985) (functus officio and post-award limitations)