Cuie v. Nordstrom, Inc. , 238 F. App'x 852 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-14-2007
    Cuie v. Nordstrom Inc
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-1114
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Cuie v. Nordstrom Inc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 590.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/590
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 07-1114
    ________________
    JOHN J. CUIE,
    Appellant
    vs.
    NORDSTROM, INC.
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv-04771)
    District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
    _______________________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    August 3, 2007
    Before: FISHER, ALDISERT and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    Filed: August 14, 2007
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    John J. Cuie appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders denying his
    motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award and his motion for
    1
    reconsideration of that ruling. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
    I.
    Cuie, an African-American male, was employed in various capacities by
    Nordstrom, Inc. (“Nordstrom”) at two of its retail stores. Nordstrom fired Cuie while he
    was employed at its store in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. According to Nordstrom, it
    fired Cuie because he exercised poor judgment by engaging in inappropriate
    conversations of a sexual nature with a fellow employee (a Caucasian female) who was
    also fired as a result. According to Cuie, Nordstrom’s stated reason was pretextual and it
    really fired him because of his race and in retaliation for his having complained of
    discrimination in the past.
    After exhausting his remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission (“EEOC”), Cuie filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
    42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Nordstrom moved to stay proceedings pending arbitration,
    which it argued was compelled by the parties’ arbitration agreement. The District Court
    granted the motion and Cuie’s claim proceeded to arbitration. After taking discovery,
    both parties moved for summary judgment. The arbitrator, in a thirty-three page opinion,
    granted Nordstrom’s motion. Cuie then filed in the District Court a motion to vacate,
    modify, or correct the arbitrator’s award. The District Court denied the motion, and also
    denied Cuie’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. Cuie appeals from both orders.1
    1
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    9 U.S.C. § 16
    (a)(3) and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    exercise plenary review over the District Court’s refusal to vacate the award, see
    2
    II.
    Under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts may vacate arbitration awards
    “only in ‘exceedingly narrow’ circumstances.” Metromedia Energy, Inc., 409 F.3d at 578
    (citation omitted). See also Roadway Package Sys., Inc. v. Kayser, 
    257 F.3d 287
    , 291 (3d
    Cir. 2001) (enumerating bases for vacating arbitration awards). The District Court ruled
    that no such circumstances were present in this case and concluded that “it appears from
    the materials submitted that the arbitrator in this matter carefully considered all of the
    evidence and argument presented to him by all of the parties and rendered an impartial
    and legally-sound decision.” (Nov. 29, 2006 Order at 2 n.1.) We agree.
    Cuie raises several arguments in his brief, but each lacks merit. First, Cuie
    argues that the award violates public policy and was procured by fraud. Cuie accuses
    Nordstrom of having misrepresented to the EEOC that he acknowledged having received
    a certain employee booklet at a “New Hire Orientation,” which Cuie denied, and argues
    that the arbitrator’s award in Nordstrom’s favor thus violates a public policy in favor of
    voluntary compliance with Title VII. Cuie appears to believe that the arbitrator’s decision
    somehow rewarded Nordstrom for, or was influenced by, its alleged misrepresentation to
    the EEOC. The arbitrator, however, expressly found the disputed fact in Cuie’s favor, so
    Nordstrom’s alleged misrepresentation to the EEOC had no bearing on his award. (Arb.
    Metromedia Energy, Inc. v. Enserch Energy Servs., Inc., 
    409 F.3d 574
    , 578-79 (3d Cir.
    2005), and review its denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, Max’s Seafood
    Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 
    176 F.3d 669
    , 673 (3d Cir. 1999).
    3
    Decision at 2.) There is thus no basis for claiming that the arbitrator’s award itself
    violates the public policy Cuie alleges or that it was procured by fraud.
    Second, Cuie accuses the arbitrator of having “lied” about his deposition
    testimony in his award. We have reviewed the relevant deposition testimony, however,
    and believe that the arbitrator fairly characterized it. Even if he had not, the District
    Court could have vacated the award on this basis only if the arbitrator’s decision
    ultimately had “absolutely no support at all in the record.” News Am. Publ’ns, Inc. v.
    Newark Typographical Union, Local 103, 
    918 F.2d 21
    , 23 (3d Cir. 1990). The materials
    submitted by the parties show that the award had record support.
    Cuie’s remaining arguments, in essence, claim merely that the arbitrator
    reached the wrong decision. That is not a basis for challenging an arbitration award. See
    Major League Umpires Ass’n v. American League of Prof’l Baseball Clubs, 
    357 F.3d 272
    , 280 (3d Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing an arbitration award, courts ‘do not sit to hear
    claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing
    decisions of lower courts.’”) (citation omitted). An award can be vacated if the arbitrator
    displays “manifest disregard” for the law, see 
    id. at 286
    , but Cuie has shown no such
    disregard here.
    4
    Finally, Cuie argues that the District Court should have reconsidered its
    refusal to vacate the award because that ruling results in a “manifest injustice.” Max’s
    Seafood Café, 
    176 F.3d at 677
    . That ruling was proper, however, so the District Court
    did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider it.
    For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders.
    5