In Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143 (U.S. 3/31/22) the Supreme Court settled a circuit court split on the scope of federal court jurisdiction in motions to vacate or confirm arbitration awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Contrary to motions to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the FAA where the federal courts can “look through” to the underlying action to find a basis for federal jurisdiction (Vaden v. Discover Bank, 566 U.S. 49 (2009)), the court held the same approach does not apply in motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA. In this case, the plaintiff Badgerow received an unfavorable arbitration decision on her claim against her employer which asserted violations of state and federal employment law. She filed a petition to vacate the award in state court, and the employer filed a motion to confirm the award in federal court. (Both parties were residents of the same state, so no diversity of jurisdiction was present). Irrespective of the federal law claims in the underlying action, based on the statutory language in the FAA the court held the employer’s motion to compel did not raise a federal question, and there was no basis for federal jurisdiction. (Justice Breyer filed a dissent).
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- June 2023
- May 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- February 2018
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
Categories
Recent Posts
- Sixth Circuit Affirms – and Reverses – on ADEA Discrimination and Harassment Claims
- Retaliatory Discharge Claim Not Covered by Arbitration Provision in Employee Confidentiality Agreement
- Employer Must Re-Open Union Facility Due to Unfair Labor Practice – Sixth Circuit
- Sixth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict for Sexual Harassment
- Employee’s Title VII Claims Survive “Last Chance Agreement”