Myers v. Darden Restaurant Group

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion in Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 25 and Granting Defendant's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award 26 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Alan L. Myers,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-13316
v.
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
Darden Restaurant Group,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [#25], AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD [#26]
Before the Court are Plaintiff Alan Myer’s Notice to Court of Arbitration
Conclusion [Docket No. 24], Plaintiff’s Motion in Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 25], and Defendant Darden
Restaurant Group’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award [Docket No. 26]. No
responses to any of the foregoing filings were submitted.
I. BACKGROUND
As stated in this Court’s Order dated February 13, 2015 [Docket No. 20],
Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that, while he was employed by the Olive Garden
as a chef, he was verbally harassed by four employees. The employees were Kyle,
Richard, Terry, and Drew. Plaintiff identifies as a bisexual black male. On January

10, 2014, when Plaintiff removed his coat from a rack in the employee coatroom,
he found a pair of women’s underpants on the hook beneath where his coat was
placed. Plaintiff filed a grievance with General Manager Seth Petty after being
sexually harassed three times. On January 14, 2014, Manager Fredrica Stephen
contacted Plaintiff to notify him that he would be permitted to take “stress leave”
with pay. Petty investigated the women’s underpants incident for two weeks and
determined that the women’s underpants were placed by another employee, but he
could not determine which employee. Petty gave Plaintiff the option to return to
work or to remain on “stress leave” without pay until Plaintiff could find another
Olive Garden location to which he could transfer.
Plaintiff alleges did not feel safe working at the same branch. Plaintiff filed
a police report and a grievance with the Olive Garden’s Corporate Office. The
Corporate Office also suggested that Plaintiff could return to work or stay on leave
without pay.

When Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, his pay stopped and he was told he would be transferred
to the Livonia branch. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claimed Defendant violated of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to address sexual harassment
and race discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliating
against him.

2

In the Court’s February 13, 2015, Order, the Court granted Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration, stayed the case until the conclusion of any
arbitration proceedings, closed the case for statistical purposes, and retained
jurisdiction in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§
1-16, for the purpose of confirming, vacating, or correcting any arbitration award
upon motion of any party at the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.
The parties appeared before an independent arbitrator, David A. Kotzian,
engaged in discovery, filed cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff
also filed a Motion to Strike various exhibits attached to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.

On December 23, 2015, Arbitrator Kotzian issued an

Opinion and Award of Arbitrator Regarding Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (“Opinion and Award”). Arbitrator
Kotzian granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, but he also
granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, stating that Plaintiff failed to
submit evidence “sufficient to support a legal claim under Title VII for sexual
harassment, retaliation or race discrimination.”

Artbitrator Kotzian awarded

Plaintiff nothing.
On December 30, Plaintiff filed the Notice to Court of Arbitration
Conclusion and the Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Notice to Court of Arbitration Conclusion is strictly informational
3

and requires no action by the Court. With respect to the Motion in Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court notes that there is no
pending Summary Judgment Motion.

Instead, it appears to the Court that

Plaintiff’s filing is a request that the Court vacate Arbitrator Kotzian’s Opinion and
Award, and the Court will treat such filing as a motion to vacate (hereinafter, the
“Motion to Vacate”). On January 12, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Confirm
Arbitration Award.
II. ANALYSIS
As the Court concluded in its February 13, 2015, Order, the parties’ Dispute
Resolution Process (“DRP”) provides that the parties agreed to go to arbitration
regarding matters such as those raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint. The DRP also
provided that the arbitration would be conducted according to the Employment
Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The AAA
states that “judgment upon the arbitration award may be entered in any federal or
state court having jurisdiction.” See Doc. No. 26-4, PgID 287 (AAA excerpt,
Rule 42(c)). Finally, the DRP provides:
Either the Employee or the Company may bring an
action in any court of competent jurisdiction to . . .
confirm, modify, enforce or vacate an arbitration
award, as may be permitted by law.
(Doc. No. 26-2, PgID 267—DRP, Judicial Enforcement section)

4

Consistent with the DRP, when the Court ordered this matter to arbitration,
the Court retained jurisdiction of the matter, in accordance with Section 9 of the
FAA, which provides:
If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a
judgment of the court shall be entered upon the
award made pursuant to the arbitration, . . . then at
any time within one year after the award is made any
party to the arbitration may apply to the court so
specified for an order confirming the award, and
thereupon the court must grant such an order
unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected
as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.
9 U.S.C. § 9 (emphasis added). As the Sixth Circuit has recognized, the FAA
“presumes that arbitration awards will be confirmed.” Dawahare v. Spencer,
210 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted) (citing 9 U.S.C. §
9). In fact, the Court must confirm the arbitrator’s award unless it is vacated,
modified, or corrected, as prescribed by the FAA. See Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v.
Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581 (2008) (“Congress enacted the FAA to replace
judicial indisposition to arbitration with a ‘national policy favoring [it] and
plac[ing] arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts . . . The
Act also supplies mechanisms for enforcing arbitration awards: a judicial decree
confirming an award . . . Under the terms of §9, a court ‘must’ confirm an
arbitration award . . .”).

5

“It is well established that courts should play only a limited role in
reviewing the decisions of arbitrators.” Dawahare, 210 F.3d at 669. A court
may vacate an award only where it was: ( 1) procured by fraud, corruption
or undue means; ( 2) when there is evidence that the arbitrators were partial
or corrupt; ( 3) where the arbiter engaged in misconduct resulting in
prejudice; or ( 4) where the arbitrators exceeded their power or so imperfectly
executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter
was not made. 9 U.S.C. §10.

In other words, the Court may vacate an

arbitration award only pursuant to the grounds stated in §10 (or §11) of the
FAA, not on the merits of the decision. See Hall Street, 552 U.S. at 588-590
(clarifying that §§10 and 11 of the FAA were the exclusive scope of review of
an arbitration award and rejecting the assertion that the language of the FAA
permits the review of an arbitration award for legal error); Grain v. Trinity
Health, Mercy Health Services, Inc., 551 F.3d 374, 380 (6th Cir. 2008)
(judicial review of an arbitration award on the legal merits is outside the scope of
the FAA).
In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff does not allege, nor does he submit any
evidence that the arbitration award was procured by fraud, corruption or undue
influence, or that the arbitrator was partial or corrupt, engaged in misconduct,
or failed to make an award on the subject matter. The Court notes that, in his
Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff does little more than assert that he disagrees with
6

the Opinion and Award. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate
should be denied.
The Court also notes that Arbitrator Kotzian authored a ten (10) page
Opinion and Award. The Opinion and Award contains an extensive analysis of
the case background, the motions filed by the parties, and the legal claims
presented by Plaintiff. Arbitrator Kotzian also sets forth the factual and legal
analysis of Plaintiff’s claims in detail, including a reasoned explanation of why
Plaintiff did not provide sufficient support for his legal claims. The Court finds
that the Opinion and Award should be confirmed.
Pursuant to §9 of the FAA, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate
and grants Defendant’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. The Court also
dismisses Plaintiff’s cause of action, with prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (i.e., Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate) [Docket No. 25]
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Confirm
Arbitration Award [Docket No. 26] is GRANTED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: April 29, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on April 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

8