Jones v. PPG Industries, Inc.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-2549
DONALD B. JONES,
Appellant
v.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2:07-cv-01537)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 13, 2010
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 15, 2010)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Donald Jones appeals from an adverse ruling by an Arbitrator resulting from a
nine-day arbitration hearing on Jones’s claims that PPG Industries, Inc. discriminated
against him based on his age and his race, and retaliated against him for his efforts to seek
redress for its discriminatory actions. Jones’s claims were arbitrated pursuant to a
mandatory arbitration program adopted by PPG for all claims arising out of the
employment relationship. Following the arbitration opinion and award, Jones filed a
motion to vacate the award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10, and PPG sought to have it
confirmed pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9. The District Court confirmed the Arbitrator’s award
and entered judgment in favor of PPG. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Jones raises two issues on appeal, both of which turn on the absence in the record
of documentary evidence, some of which Jones believes should have been in PPG’s files,
and some of which the Arbitrator agreed had been in the files but was no longer there.
Jones does not level any other attack on the opinion or award.
Specifically, Jones asserted before the District Court, and repeats on appeal, that
there must have been emails and inter-office correspondence within PPG regarding the
events complained of that have not been produced, and have thus been destroyed by PPG.
He offered no specific proof as to the existence of such documented communications at a
prior time that would support his spoliation claim. However, there is one specific file -
the investigatory file - that did exist, and was missing as the time of the arbitration. The
Arbitrator drew an adverse inference based on the disappearance of this file but
determined nonetheless that “even with this favorable adverse inference, considering all
the evidence as a whole, Jones has not demonstrated that PPG unlawfully discriminated
2
or retaliated against him.” App. 45.
Jones urges (1) that the Arbitrator’s holding of no discrimination is “logically
unreconcilable” with his imposition of an adverse discrimination inference against
Appellees as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, which holding amounts to a manifest
disregard of the law and/or fact, and (2) that the District Court’s confirmation of the
flawed award is reversible error.
Our review of a district court’s order confirming an award is de novo, where, as
here, the attack is based on law, rather than facts. Century Indem. Co. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing to Retrocessional Agreement Nos. 950548,
950549, 950646, 584 F.3d 513, 521 (3d Cir. 2009). We essentially stand in the shoes of
the district court in determining whether the appellants were entitled to have the award
vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Mut. Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co.
v. Norad Reinsurance. Co., 868 F.2d 52, 56 (3d Cir. 1989). The ability of a court to
vacate an arbitration award is extremely limited under the relevant statutory framework,
to the following:
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either
of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the
hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent
and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the
rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
3
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed
them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted
was not made.
9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)-(1)
Arbitration awards are entitled to “extreme[] deferen[ce],” Dluhos v.
Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003), and a party seeking to vacate an
arbitration award must clear a “high hurdle,” Stolt-Nielson S.A. v. AnimalFeeds
Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758, 1767 (2010). A court must enforce an arbitration
award unless there is “absolutely no support at all in the record justifying the
arbitrator’s determinations.” United Transp. Union Local 1589 v. Suburban
Transit Corp., 51 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Arbitrator here heard testimony over nine days and considered 74
exhibits, resulting in a 1974 page transcript. The Arbitrator then issued a 44-page
opinion detailing his findings as to the evidence, and as to his view of Jones’s
allegations of spoliation regarding missing documents. The former spanned 36
pages of the opinion, in which the Arbitrator addressed each of Jones’s contentions
as to discrimination and retaliatory conduct on the part of PPG. The latter is
addressed in the remaining pages, with the Arbitrator concluding that:
C There was no credible evidence that there were other emails that existed in
the first place, so one could not conclude that they were not preserved, or
were destroyed.
4
C With respect to the investigator’s file, the evidence supported the inference
that the file was lost or misplaced, but there was no excuse for
management’s losing the file, especially once litigation had started.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator “sanction[ed] PPG by finding an adverse
inference that there was information in that file which would have actually assisted
Jones in carrying his burden of proof in this case.” App. 45. However, as noted
above, the Arbitrator concluded that, even with this inference, given the record
evidence adduced at the hearing, Jones had not demonstrated unlawful
discrimination or retaliation.
The District Court reviewed the Arbitrator’s finding and concluded, in light
of the extremely deferential standard of review, that:
this Court will not vacate or modify the Opinion and Award of the
arbitrator with regard to spoliation. The Court finds that there is no
evidence that the decision of arbitrator Breen was procured by
corruption, fraud, or undue means. Nor is there is [sic] evidence that
arbitrator Breen “manifestly disregarded” the law in applying the
adverse inference while still finding that PPG did not unlawfully
discriminate against plaintiff.
App. 50.
Notwithstanding Jones’s attempt to characterize the “missing” evidence as crucial,
and his claim that the Arbitrator’s unwillingness to credit this aspect of his case evidences
a “manifest disregard of the law,” we find ourselves in agreement with the District Court.
The only evidence clearly missing, and lost by PPG, was the investigatory file, as to
which the Arbitrator gave an inference in Jones’s favor. There is no support for a finding
5
of disregard for the law, let alone corruption, fraud or misconduct, by the Arbitrator.
Moreover, Jones fails to mention, let alone discuss, the evidence that was adduced
over nine days of testimony over several months, where witnesses, including Jones,
introduced evidence as to various events, with the Arbitrator conducting the proceedings
and judging their credibility. The Arbitrator expressed no doubt as to his ultimate
conclusion, and Jones’s attempt to undermine that conclusion falls short where he levels
no attack whatsoever on the conclusion as it resulted from the evidence that was adduced
at the hearing. The fact that the Arbitrator credited the evidence before him and found it
not diminished or diluted by the adverse inference, does not constitute a basis to vacate
the award as a matter of law under the limited parameters of a court’s ability to do so
under the FAA.
Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court confirming the
arbitration award.
6