Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards and Mediation Agreements: Tips for Sustaining Deference

By Rabich, Julia; Stoner, Sarah et al. | Dispute Resolution Journal, February-April 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards and Mediation Agreements: Tips for Sustaining Deference

Rabich, Julia, Stoner, Sarah, Welsh, Nancy A., Dispute Resolution Journal

Courts generally extend deference to arbitration awards and mediated settlement agreements, but there are exceptions. This article discusses what arbitrators and mediators should do to sustain such deference.

Courts value the results produced by arbitration and mediation. Both processes dispose of disputes that might otherwise clog court dockets. Both processes also provide parties with the opportunity to be heard. Finally, both processes are supposed to involve the exercise of party selfdetermination. As a result, and consistent with the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), courts extend great deference to arbitrators when determining whether to enforce or vacate arbitral awards. Similarly, courts are highly unlikely to set aside or refuse to enforce settlement agreements facilitated by mediators.

Arbitrators and mediators may be tempted to take judicial deference for granted. They should not. Recent cases reveal occasions when courts have concluded that an arbitrator or mediator forfeited the right to deference. Based on these cases, this article suggests some trends and common-sense practice tips that could help arbitrators and mediators avoid unnecessary missteps.

I. Arbitration

A. Adhere to Procedural Rules and Remedies Established by the Parties

It is often said that arbitration is a "creature of contract." Through their contracts, parties determine the arbitrators' substantive and procedural powers. Arbitrators who comply with the resulting substantive and procedural limits de monstrate deference to the parties and reinforce the parties' autonomy. Arbitra tors who exceed the scope of the authority granted to them in the contract provide unhappy parties with the opportunity to challenge the en forcement of arbitration awards on two different grounds-ex ceeding arbitral authority and manifest disregard of the law.

State v. Connecticut State Em - ployees Association1 provides an example of the recent use of the "exceeding authority" ground. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in this case re - quired the arbitrator to determine whether an employee's demotion was based on "just cause." If the arbitrator failed to find just cause, the arbitrator was empowered to award the appropriate remedy. In this instance, the arbitrator found just cause for the employee's demotion but nonetheless proceeded to prescribe a remedy. The Connecti cut Appellate Court partially vacated the award, finding that the arbitrator had exceeded the authority explicitly conferred in the CBA. The arbitrator's prescription of a remedy was not welcomed as a useful extra service. Rather, it had the effect of undermining the parties' autonomy.

In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.,2 the U.S. Supreme Court limited judicial review of awards to grounds expressed in Sec tions 10 and 11 of the FAA. However, the Court refrained from resolving whether manifest disregard of the law, a common law ground for vacating an award, constituted a valid ground for va catur. Because this issue remains unanswered, lower courts have continued to vacate arbitral awards on the basis of manifest disregard of the law in all of the following circumstances: when an arbitrator has rendered an award that is inconsistent with the plain language of the parties' agreement, or fails to "draw the award from the es sence of the agreement," or ignores applicable law despite recognition of such law.3

When a contract specifically incorporates the rules governing the conduct of arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator's failure to follow these rules has been found to represent manifest disregard of the "essence of the agreement."4 In Kashner David son Securities Corp. v. Mscisz,5 the 1st Circuit ruled that the award dismissing the claims against Kashner Davidson with prejudice had to be vacated for manifest disregard of the law be - cause the arbitrator ignored "plainly stated procedural rules" that were implicitly incorporated into an agreement pursuant to the "Con stitution, By-Laws, Regula tions and/or Code of Arbitra tion Procedures of the 'sponsoring organization,' in this case, the NASD [National Asso - ciation of Securities Dealers].

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards and Mediation Agreements: Tips for Sustaining Deference


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?