In Rogers v. KBR Technical Services Inc., No. 08-20036 (5th Cir. June 9, 2008), the Fifth Circuit was presented with the applicability of the manifest disregard of law standard for vacating arbitration awards after the Supreme Court’s decision of Hall Street Associates v. Mattel (see March 28, 2008 post on Mattel, and the Special Focus posting of April 28, 2008 relating to the future of the manifest disregard of law doctrine after the Mattel decision). The court declined to rule on the issue, instead confirming the award on other grounds. This pro se case involved a claim for benefits by Rogers, an employee of Halliburton, arising out of his provision of services in Afghanistan. His lawsuit was stayed pending arbitration pursuant to a process contained in his employment agreement.
After an award was issued in his favor in the amount of only $252.84, Rogers moved to vacate the award, Halliburton moved to confirm, and after the award was confirmed, Rogers filed a FRCP 59 post-trial motion to alter or amend the final judgment. Some of the bases for the Rule 59 motion alleged that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law, raising the issue of whether the manifest disregard of law doctrine survived Mattel. The court confirmed the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision could be reasonably inferred from the provisions of the employment agreement. The court held that “because we affirm the district court and hold that the arbitration award is confirmed, there is no need in the instant case to determine whether those non-statutory grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award remain good law after Mattel.” The court essentially rejected the substance of the manifest disregard arguments on the basis that the actions of the arbitrator were rationally based upon the specific provisions of the employment agreement and the rules applicable to the arbitration.
Since the briefs are not available on PACER or Westlaw in this unreported, pro se case, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the continuing viability of the manifest disregard of law doctrine was briefed. The Mattel decision was issued after the Appellant filed his initial brief, but prior to the opposition and reply briefs being filed. It is unlikely that the Appellee would have raised the issue, and if the issue was raised for the first time in Appellant’s reply brief, the court likely would have permitted a supplemental response from the Appellee. According to the docket sheet, no supplemental briefing was submitted, and the case was decided less than four months after the briefing notice was issued, without oral argument.
Although not addressing the issue of the impact of Mattel on the manifest disregard of law doctrine, this decision does indicate that Mattel brings into question the continued viability of the manifest disregard of law doctrine. Expect further developments in this area.
This post written by Rollie Goss.