A District Court judge in Georgia has denied a plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award that was entered in favor of a defendant accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state law over allegedly inaccurate credit reporting.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant inaccurately reported her credit history and initiated arbitration proceedings last year to press her claims.
- At an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff testified and submitted 56 exhibits, all of which the arbitrator admitted, although he noted there were discrepancies and questions about the accuracy of some of them and gave those exhibits less weight. The defendant presented six exhibits and testimony from a senior litigation analyst.
- The arbitrator entered a final award in favor of the defendant on all of the plaintiff’s claims.
- The plaintiff then asked the District Court to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator failed to consider critical evidence supporting her FCRA claims and that he exceeded his authority by manifestly disregarding the FCRA, ignoring her ongoing harm, and relying on the defendant’s private policy instead of applying the statute.
The ruling: Judge J.P. Boulee of the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the motion and confirmed the arbitration award.
- The Federal Arbitration Act allows an award to be vacated on only four narrow grounds, Judge Boulee explained, and those grounds carry “no hint of flexibility.” Expanding them would open the door to full-blown appeals that would make arbitration “merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process.”
- On the evidence argument, the judge found no indication the arbitrator failed to consider anything. The record showed the arbitrator admitted every one of the plaintiff’s exhibits and then decided how much weight each deserved. At most, the plaintiff showed she disagreed with the arbitrator’s assessment of the evidence, which is not a basis for vacating an award.
- On the exceeded-authority argument, the judge noted that vacating an award is proper only when an arbitrator strays from the arbitration agreement and dispenses “his own brand of industrial justice.” The parties’ agreement gave the arbitrator authority to decide all claims arising out of their relationship, whether based in contract, tort, statute, or fraud, and that is exactly what he did.
- Even an incorrect legal conclusion, or a serious error, is not grounds for vacating an award, the judge wrote, and manifest disregard of the law is not a recognized basis for vacating in the Eleventh Circuit. The plaintiff’s arguments amounted to nothing more than disagreement with how the arbitrator applied the law.
