|
dominant, undisputed rule of law. However, the language employed | by the various circuits to describe and apply this ground in the | commercial arbitration milieu reflects two distinct, different | thresholds for vacatur being used by those courts. First, the | Tenth Circuit in Seymour and the Eighth Circuit in PaineWebber, | Inc. v. Argon, 49 F.3d 347 (8th Cir. 1995) contemplate that an | award can be vacated when it "explicitly" conflicts with, | violates, or is contrary to the subject public policy. The | judicial inquiry under this variant of the "public policy" | ground obliges the court to delve into the merits of the | arbitration award in order to ascertain whether the arbitrator's | analysis and application of the parties' contract or relevant | law "violates" or "conflicts" with the subject public policy. |
|
| Second, the Eleventh Circuit in Brown v. Rauscher Pierce | Refnses, Inc., 994 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1994) and the Second | Circuit in Diapulse Corp. of America v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d | 1108 (2d Cir. 1980) trigger vacatur only when a court | concludes that implementation of the arbitral result | (typically, effectuation of the remedy directed by the | arbitrator) compels one of the parties to violate a well- | defined and dominant public policy, a determination which does | not require a reviewing court to evaluate the merits of the | arbitration award. Instead, the court need only ascertain | whether confirmation of, or refusal to vacate an arbitration | award, and a judicial order directing compliance with its | terms, will place one or both of the parties to the award in | violation of the subject public policy. If it would, the award | must be vacated. If it does not, vacatur is not warranted. For | a full discussion of the evolution and application of the | public policy exception in the labor arbitration sphere, see | Stephen L. Hayford and Anthony V. Sinicropi, The Labor | Contract and External Law: Revisiting the Arbitrator's Scope | of Authority, 1993 J. Disp. Resol. 249. |
|
| | 4. States have rarely addressed "manifest disregard of the | law" or "public policy" as grounds for vacatur. See, e.g., | Schoonmacher v. Cummings and Lockwood of Connecticut, 252 | Conn. 416, 747 A.2d 1017 (2000) (stating that court determines | that public policy of facilitating clients' access to an | attorney of their choice requires a court to conduct de novo | review of arbitration decisions involving non-competition | agreements among attorneys); State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, | Council 4, 252 Conn. 467, 747 A.2d 480 (2000) (concluding that | arbitration award reinstating employee for admittedly making | harassing phone calls to a legislator which conduct violated | state law should be overturned as a violation of clearly | expressed public policy). |
|
| One area in which state courts have considered it appropriate | to review the awards of arbitrators on public-policy grounds | is family law and, in particular, statutes or case law | requiring |
|
|