McNeill v. Raymour & Flanigan Furniture

Filing 48

DECISION AND ORDER that 45 Defendants' motion to confirm the Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 46 ) is GRANTED. The Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 41 , Attach. 1) is CONFIRMED. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall issue a Judgment for Defendant in conformance with the Arbitration Award. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/1/2019. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular and certified mail). (sal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
KENYA McNEILL,
Plaintiff,
6:15-CV-1473
(GTS/TWD)

v.
RAMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

KENYA McNEILL
Plaintiff, Pro Se
147 Main Street, 2nd Floor Front
Whitesboro, NY 13492
LITTLER, MENDELSON LAW FIRM
Counsel for Defendant
375 Woodcliff Drive, 2nd Floor
Fairport, NY 14450

PAMELA S.C. REYNOLDS, ESQ.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se employment discrimination action under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 filed by Kenya McNeill (“Plaintiff”) against Ramours
Furniture Company, Inc. (“Defendant”), is Defendant’s motion, pursuant to Section 9 of the
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., to confirm an arbitration opinion and
award (“Arbitration Award”) rendered against Plaintiff by an arbitrator of the American
Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on December 14, 2018. (Dkt. No. 41, Attach. 1.) For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted, the Arbitration Award is confirmed, and

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A.

Relevant Factual History

Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendant in 2013 as a part-time Backroom
Associate, and was hired on December 19, 2013. (Dkt. No. 45, at 31 [attaching page “2” of Ex. 4
to Arbitration Decision and Order].) While employed on or about March 13, 2014, Plaintiff
entered into an Employment Arbitration Program agreement (i.e., “EAP”). (Id.) More
specifically, Plaintiff signed the Associate’s Agreement and Consent form, agreeing to the terms
and conditions of the EAP. (Dkt. No. 9, Attach. 3, at 2-3, 11-12.) The EAP agreement, among
other things, provided that any and all employment-related disputes arising out of Plaintiff’s
employment would be arbitrated confidentially. (Id.) Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on
December 15, 2014. (See generally Dkt. No. 14.)
Following termination, Plaintiff filed a civil action against Defendant, asserting claims of
retaliation and discrimination on the basis of his race, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Dkt. No. 1 [Pl.’s Compl.].) On March 3, 2016,
Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. (Dkt. No. 9.) On December 5, 2016, through a
Decision and Order, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the
action pending the completion of arbitration. (Dkt. No. 14 [Decision and Order filed Dec. 5,
2016].)
B.

Arbitration Award

Plaintiff selected the AAA as the forum in which to conduct arbitration, and both parties
agreed to the appointment of Jeffery D. Pollack as the Arbitrator. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15.) On
2

December 14, 2018, the AAA issued Arbitrator Pollock’s Opinion and Award, which denied all
of Plaintiff’s claims for relief. (See generally Dkt. No. 41, Attach. 1.) Specifically, the
Arbitrator’s Award provided as follows: (1) all of Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and
retaliation are denied and dismissed; (2) the administrative fees and expenses of the AAA
(totaling $3,050.00) and the compensation and expense of the Arbitrator (totaling $21,225.00)
shall be borne in accordance with provisions of the personnel manual or employment agreement;
(3) the Award is “in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration”
and all claims not expressly granted therein are denied; and (4) the Award “may be executed in
any number of counterparts, . . . all of which shall constitute together one and the same
instrument.” (Id. at 21-22.)
C.

Parties’ Arguments on Defendant’s Motion

Generally, in its motion, Defendant asserts three arguments: (1) Plaintiff waived his right
to pursue in court employment-related claims, including those asserted in this case, and agreed to
be bound by arbitration conducted in accordance with the EAP; (2) the Arbitration was
conducted fairly, reasonably and properly, with no evidence of misconduct or corruption; and (3)
no manifest disregard of the law was present in Arbitration. (See generally, Dkt. No. 41, Attach.
1.)
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s two-page response asserts two arguments: (1)
the Order sealing the Arbitration Award and Defendant’s motion should be reversed; and (2) the
overall findings of the Arbitrator are erroneous. (See generally Dkt. No. 46.) More specifically,
Plaintiff sets forth an argument regarding his right (and the public’s right) to access court
materials under the First Amendment. (Id.)
3

In reply, Defendant asserts the following two arguments: (1) Plaintiff’s response neither
cites legal authority nor provides any basis for declining to confirm the Arbitration Award; and
(2) this Court properly granted Defendant’s motion to seal both the Arbitration Award and the
motion to confirm the Arbitration Award. (See generally Dkt. No. 47 [Def.’s Reply Mem. 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,
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
4

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 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).

5

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. No. 45 [Def.’s
Mem. of Law].) To those reasons, the Court adds only the following analysis.
As an initial matter, the Court finds, based on the current record, that Plaintiff voluntarily
signed the EAP agreement. The EAP agreement clearly and expressly states that, by signing the
agreement, Plaintiff agrees to arbitrate all claims regarding his employment against Defendant
under the terms of the Program. (Dkt. No. 45, Attach. 3 at 11-12 [Ex. 1 to EAP Terms].)
Plaintiff has not provided any reason as to why this agreement is somehow unenforceable. As a
result, the Court finds that the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to preside over the parties’ dispute. See
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67-68 (2010) (noting that the FAA places
arbitration agreements on an equal footing with contracts and therefore courts are required to
enforce them according to their terms provided no applicable contract defense would suggest it
should be invalidated); Tarulli v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 151, 158 (S.D.N.Y.
2004) (finding that the plaintiff failed to show a grounds for holding the arbitration agreement
was unconscionable because he voluntarily signed the agreement and knowingly accepted
employment under the agreement on the condition that employment-related disputes would be
settled through arbitration).
As to Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not
provided any evidence to dispute the validity of the Arbitration Award, nor has he provided any

6

evidence in opposition to Defendant’s motion.1 Because Plaintiff has not provided any basis for
declining to confirm the Arbitration Award, Plaintiff has not shown the existence of grounds to
vacate the Award.
Furthermore, the Court finds that there is a rational basis for the outcome reached by the
Arbitrator and that there was no evidence of misconduct, partiality or corruption on the part of
the Arbitrator. In addition, there is no evidence that the Decision and Award was procured by
corruption or fraud. Because the Court finds a rational basis for the Award, the Court also finds
that there has not been a manifest disregard of law.
Finally, the Court is satisfied with the performance of the Arbitrator. Plaintiff and
Defendant were each afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their cases. The Court
therefore finds no grounds to vacate the award based on the Arbitrator’s actions.
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. 46) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 41, Attach. 1) is CONFIRMED; and it
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a Judgment for Defendant in
conformance with the Arbitration Award.
1

With regard to Plaintiff’s arguments as to why there should be a reversal of the
Court’s Order to seal both the Arbitration and the motion to confirm the Arbitration Award, this
Court disregards those arguments for lack of relevance to the motion at hand.
7

Dated: August 1, 2019
Syracuse, New York

8