ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Arbitration Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: Arbitration Blog

Arbitrator's manifest disregard of the law - a dying doctrine

ADVERTISEMENTS

Scenario: An individual employee and her employer agree to arbitrate the employee's claim against the employer. Perhaps Title VII, ADA, ADEA, whatever. They go to arbitration, and the arbitrator makes a decision. The loser reads the decision and sees a clear error in legal reasoning.

Can the loser in arbitration get the arbitrator's award vacated on the ground that the arbitrator acted in "manifest disregard of the law"?

It would seem that the answer has to be "no" even though many courts have said "yes." The answer has to be "no" because the Federal Arbitration Act contains an exclusive list of legal grounds for overturning arbitration awards. And the US Supreme Court in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008) repeatedly stated that the statutory grounds are exclusive. That means non-statutory grounds such as "manifest disregard of the law" cannot be used.

Citigroup Global Markets v. Debra Bacon (5th Cir 03/05/2009) squarely holds:

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1403 (2008) "restricts the grounds for vacatur to those set forth in § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and consequently, manifest disregard of the law is no longer an independent ground for vacating arbitration awards under the FAA."

But wait. Maybe you can wrap "manifest disregard of the law" up in new clothes, and jam it into the list of statutory grounds. As I have said previously [Hall Street: Non-statutory grounds for review],

The Supreme Court has never said (and I believe never will say) that "manifest disregard" exists as a ground separate from the FAA. In Hall Street the Court referred to the concept as "a supposed judicial expansion by interpretation," and mused that it might refer to the §10 grounds collectively, or might be "shorthand" for §10(a)(3) (?guilty of misconduct?) or §10(a)(4) (?exceeded their powers").

And so, when the 5th Circuit remanded the Citigroup Global Markets case, it should be an invitation to the lawyers to make the facts fit the statute.

Other comments on the 5th Circuit case:

5th Circuit Nixes Manifest Disregard as Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Awards

"Manifest Disregard of Law" Now History in 5th Circuit

Full post as published by Arbitration Blog on March 17, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0165 secs (new cache)