Dobson v. Parsons Corporation

Filing 26

DECISION & ORDER granting # 23 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award; the Arbitration Award is CONFIRMED; and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/30/13. (lmw,)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
MICHAEL DOBSON,
Plaintiff,
5:12-CV-0190
(GTS/ATB)

v.
PARSONS CORP.,
Defendant.
___________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

MICHAEL DOBSON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
9200 Gold Dust Court-J
Laurel, MD 20723
JACKSON LEWIS LLP
Counsel for Defendant
One North Broadway, Suite 1502
White Plains, NY 10601

GREG A. RIOLO, ESQ.
MATTHEW H. WOODARD, ESQ.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this employment discrimination action by Michael Dobson
(“Plaintiff”) against Parsons Corporation (“Defendant”), is Defendant’s motion, pursuant to
Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., to confirm an
arbitration opinion and award (the “Award”) rendered by an arbitrator of the American
Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on January 16, 2013, against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 23.) For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted, the Award is confirmed, and Plaintiff’s
Complaint is dismissed.

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A.

Relevant Factual History

Defendant hired Plaintiff on April 11, 2011, to commence work on May 2, 2011, as a
Quality Control Manager. (Dkt. No. 23, Attach. 4 [Ex. C to Woodard Affirm., attaching
Arbitration Award].) On or about May 3, 2011, Plaintiff signed an agreement to participate in
Defendant’s Employee Dispute Resolution Program (“EDRP”), which specifically declared him
to be an employee-at-will. (Id.)
When he was hired, Plaintiff was to work on a project being performed by Defendant on
behalf of Honeywell International, Inc., in a program to clean up on Onondaga Lake. (Id.) This
project had several sub-parts that the parties referred to by their acronyms: the Sediment
Management System (“SMS”); the Sediment Consolidation Area (“SCA”); and the Sediment
Processing Area (“SPA”). (Id.) Plaintiff worked as the Quality Control Manger on the SCA and
SMS projects; and, at various times, he reported to Al Steinhoff on the SCA project, and Paul
Blue on the SMS project. (Id.) Plaintiff was laid off from Defendant effective January 3, 2012,
(purportedly) due to lack of work. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was laid off because he brought to the attention of his managers
the fact that certain forms should be filled out describing to both Honeywell and the regulatory
agencies that there were non-conformances found on the project on which he worked. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that, after bringing these matters to the attention of his supervisors, they did
nothing to respond to his concerns and, instead, filed disciplinary charges against him and
ultimately laid him off. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that both the “disciplinary write-ups” and the
ultimate layoff were in retaliation for having raised the concerns about documentation on the job.

2

(Id.) He alleges that the conclusion that he was the victim of retaliation is further supported by
the fact that no one else connected with the job was laid off in December 2011 as part of the
purported winding down of the construction season due to weather. (Id.)
Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that Plaintiff was not subject to any disciplinary
proceeding. (Id.) Defendant asserts that, while Plaintiff was written up and given counseling
based on two instances of unprofessional communications with others on the job site in
September 2011, he was not subjected to “discipline.” (Id.) Defendant asserts that it attempted
to find additional placements or reassignments for Plaintiff when the construction project was
concluded due to both completion of portions of the project, as well as inclement weather that
prevented construction from taking place in Syracuse during the winter months. (Id.) Defendant
asserts that another assignment could not be found to match Plaintiff’s skill set and, in fact, his
position was never replaced on the Onondaga Lake Project. (Id.)
Defendant asserts that it did not violate the New York State Labor law, nor did it retaliate
against Plaintiff. (Id.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff did not disclose any activity by Defendant
that was in violation of the law and presented a danger to public health or safety. (Id.) Defendant
asserts that, at most, Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant had an obligation to fill out certain forms
as a result of its contract with Honeywell. (Id.) Defendant asserts that is had no such obligation,
and that Honeywell’s other contractors on the job site (as well as the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation or “DEC”) also saw no reason for the forms to be
filled out. (Id.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was not subjected to retaliation of any sort, nor
was he a “whistleblower” under the labor law. (Id.) Rather, asserts Defendant, Plaintiff was laid
off when there was no work for him to do. (Id.)

3

B.

Arbitration Award

On April 16, 2012, this action was stayed pending completion of arbitration of the claims
asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to the terms of Defendant’s EDRP. (Dkt. No. 23,
Attach 1 at ¶ 3 [Woodward Affirm.].) The parties selected the AAA as the forum in which to
conduct their arbitration, and agreed to the appointment of Ms. Bonnie Siber Weinstock as the
Arbitrator. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) On January 17, 2013, the AAA issued Arbitrator Weinstock’s
Opinion and Award, dated January 16, 2013, which denied all of Plaintiff’s claims for relief. (Id.
at ¶ 8.) Specifically, the Arbitrator’s Award provided as follows: (1) it denied all of Plaintiff’s
claims and held that the Defendant did not violate New York Labor Law § 740; (2) it held that
the administrative fees and expenses of the AAA (totaling $1,700.00) and the compensation and
expense of the Arbitrator (totaling $15,800.00) shall be borne as incurred; (3) it ruled that the
Award is “in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration
Tribunal;” and (4) it denied all claims not expressly granted herein. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
C.

Parties’ Arguments on Defendant’s Motion

Generally, in his motion to confirm an arbitration award, Defendant argues that the
Award should be confirmed because (1) the parties expressly agreed to final and binding
arbitration of the claims asserted in this case, (2) the arbitration was conducted fairly, reasonably
and properly, and (3) an award was issued that resolved all claims in favor of Defendant. (See
generally Dkt. No. 23, Attach. 1 and 5 [Def.’s Affirm. and Memo of Law.].)
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s two-page response argues that the Court should
not confirm the Award and should instead permit Plaintiff’s claim to proceed to trial for the
following seven reasons: (1) the arbitration proceeding were neither speedy nor impartial, as

4

required by the EDRP; (2) for example, the Arbitrator was partial (and guilty of misconduct
and/or manifest disregard of the law) in that (a) she frequently stopped Plaintiff’s line of
questioning, preventing him from obtaining the necessary information from the witnesses, and
(b) she prevented Plaintiff from demonstrating that the construction projects to which he was
assigned remained ongoing when he was laid off; and (3) in addition, the Arbitrator was partial
(and imperfectly executed her powers and/or manifestly disregarded the law) in that (a) she
refused to acknowledge the possibility that a train derailment could constitute a danger to the
public health or safety for purposes of analyzing his whistleblower retaliation claim under New
York Labor Law § 740, (b) she mistakenly stated in her decision that Defendant sent Plaintiff on
interviews in an attempt to find him work before he was laid off (which Plaintiff contends never
happened), (c) she minimized, if not ignored, the fact that Defendant conducted an incomplete
investigation of the purportedly “unprofessional way” in which Plaintiff “communicated with
others,” and (d) she failed to raise any issue about “derogatory statements” that Defendant’s
managers allegedly made about him. (See generally Dkt. No. 24 [Plf.’s Opp’n Memo of Law].)
In reply, Defendant asserts the following three arguments: (1) the arbitration proceeding
was sufficiently speedy for purposes of the EDRP and FAA because a decision was issued in
seven months and both parties were given ample opportunity to present their cases within that
time period; (2) there was no partiality, misconduct, imperfect execution of powers, or manifest
disregard of the law by the Arbitrator because (a) Plaintiff, as a pro so litigant, occasionally
questioned witnesses regarding information that was not relevant or material to issues in the
case, (b) having the witnesses leave the room while the Arbitrator obtained clarification from
Plaintiff, or correctly explained to him why his line of questioning was irrelevant or improper,

5

helped to prevent the witnesses from developing bias or prejudice against Plaintiff, (c) Plaintiff
did not proffer any evidence regarding a train derailment throughout the case, and instead
focused on establishing that Defendant failed to comply with an obligation to report contractual
non-conformances, (d) Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to question Defendant’s witnesses
at the arbitration hearing, (e) according to the evidence, Defendant made several efforts to find
Plaintiff other work within the Company before the decision to lay him off was made, (f) a
proper investigation was performed by Defendant that resulted in the conclusions that Plaintiff
used intimidating and aggressive behavior, and (g) the Arbitrator specifically addressed the issue
of “derogatory statements” in a footnote; and (3) Plaintiff’s response largely ignores the
arguments in Defendant’s original motion papers. (See generally Dkt. No. 25 [Def.’s Reply to
Plf.’s Opp’n Memo. of Law.].)
II.

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS
A.

Legal Standard Governing Review of Arbitration Award

“The review of arbitration awards is generally governed by the FAA.” In re Arbitration
Before New York Stock Exch., Inc., 04-CV-0488, 2004 WL 2072460, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8,
2004) (citing Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197, 201 [2d Cir.1998], cert. denied, 526
U.S. 1034 [1999]). “Arbitration awards are subject to very limited review in order to avoid
undermining the twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long
and expensive litigation.” Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij, BV v. Standard Microsystems Corp.,
103 F.3d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1997). “Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, any party to an arbitration may apply to
a federal court for an order confirming the award resulting from the arbitration, and the court
‘must grant . . . an order [confirming the arbitration award] unless the award is vacated,

6

modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.’” In re Arbitration Before
New York Stock Exch., Inc., 2004 WL 2072460, at *5 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 9) (other citations
omitted).
“The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ‘adhere[s] firmly to the proposition . . . that
an arbitration award should be enforced, despite a court's disagreement with it on the merits, if
there is a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.’” Id. (quoting Landy Michaels
Realty Corp. v. Local 32B-32J, 954 F.2d 794, 797 [2d Cir.1992]) (other citations omitted).
The FAA provides that an arbitration award may be vacated: (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 (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.
Id. at *5-6 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 10[a]).
“The burden of establishing the existence of one of the grounds for vacatur rests with the
party seeking that form of statutory relief.” Id. at *6 (citing Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij,
103 F.3d at 12) (other citations omitted).
“In addition to the statutory grounds stated in the FAA, the Second Circuit has
recognized that an arbitration award may be vacated ‘if it is in manifest disregard of the law.’”
Id. (quoting Halligan, 148 F.3d at 202) (other citations omitted). “Manifest disregard clearly
means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law.” Id. (citations omitted). “To
vacate an arbitration award on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law, ‘a reviewing court
must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it
7

or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and
clearly applicable to the case.’ “ Id. (quoting Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 220 F.3d 22, 28
(2d Cir.2000) (other citations omitted). “Where there is a ‘colorable justification’ or a ‘rational
basis' for an award, it is not in ‘manifest disregard of the law.’” Id. (citations omitted). “Review
of arbitration awards for manifest disregard is ‘severely limited.’” Id. (citations omitted).
III.

ANALYSIS
After carefully considering the matter, the Court finds that the Arbitration Award should

be confirmed for the reasons stated by Defendant in its motion papers. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25.) The
Court would add only the following analysis.
As an initial matter, the Court finds, based on the current record, that Plaintiff voluntarily
signed the EDRP agreement. Moreover, the Court finds that the EDRP agreement is clear on its
face, and expressly states that those signing it agree to “mandatory arbitration provisions.” (Dkt.
No. 23, Attach. 3 [Ex. B to Woodard Affirm.].) As a result, the Court finds that the Arbitrator
had jurisdiction to preside over the parties’ dispute.
Furthermore, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the Award was faulty because the
arbitration was neither “speedy” nor “impartial.” The record establishes that a decision was
rendered by the Arbitrator within seven months, which the Court finds to be sufficiently prompt
under the circumstances. (Dkt. No. 23, Attach. 2 [Ex. A to Woodard Affirm.]; Attach. 3 [Ex. C to
Woodard Affirm.].)
Moreover, based on the current record, the Court finds that there was a colorable
justification or a rational basis for the Award. For example, there is evidence in the record that
supports the following facts: (1) Plaintiff was counseled for his behavior towards subcontractor

8

employees on the construction, and counseled to communicate in a professional manner that
required attendance in anger management training; (2) the PCR was not a reaction to anything
that Plaintiff may have said about quality control issues and was not a reaction to anything
Plaintiff wrote in a document about the Company’s response to his allegations of undocumented
non-conformances; (3) Plaintiff was laid of due to a lack of work, and the complaints raised by
Plaintiff and the criticisms of his performance were not the cause of his layoff; (4) after
Plaintiff’s layoff, no other individual was assigned or hired to be the Quality Control Manager on
the job site; and (5) a good-faith effort was made by the Company to find a position to which
Plaintiff could be reassigned so as to avoid his layoff.
Finally, the Court is satisfied with the performance of the Arbitrator. For example, the
record establishes that Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to present his case, and that
removing the witnesses from the room while the Arbitrator obtained clarification from (or
provided explanation to) Plaintiff helped prevent the witnesses from developing any bias or
prejudice against Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff did not offer sufficient evidence regarding a
train derailment in his case, and a review by other parties concluded there was no possibility of
derailment.
For all of these reasons, the Court confirms the Arbitration Award.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award (Dkt. No. 23) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 23, Attach. 4) in CONFIRMED; and
it is further

9

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a Judgment for Defendant in
conformance with the Arbitration Award; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: September 30, 2013
Syracuse, New York

10