IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11128

Summary Calendar

TOMMY L. PARKER, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

ETB MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. ET AL., 

 Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-68

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff–Appellant Tommy L. Parker, appearing pro se, filed suit 

against his former employer, Defendant–Appellee ETB Management, L.L.C.

(“ETB”), alleging age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act. ROA.8–9, 202. The district court found 

that Parker had signed a binding arbitration agreement with ETB and 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11128 Document: 00513623704 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016
No. 15-11128

2

compelled the parties to attend arbitration. ROA.203, 205. The arbitrator 

analyzed documentary evidence, heard witness testimony, and reviewed posthearing briefing. ROA.304. The arbitrator ruled against Parker on both his age 

discrimination and retaliation claims. ROA.268–69. The district court then 

granted ETB’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Parker’s 

motion to vacate the award. ROA.303–06. Parker filed a second motion to 

vacate, and the district court issued a warning against Parker, threatening 

sanctions if he continued to file frivolous claims. ROA.374. Parker filed four 

additional motions to vacate based on similar arguments, and the district court 

twice imposed sanctions against Parker for filing repeated claims “without a 

proper legal basis.” ROA.389–90, 408. Parker now appeals the district court’s 

confirmation of the arbitration award.

“We review a district court’s confirmation of an award de novo, but the 

review of the underlying award is exceedingly deferential.” Rain CII Carbon, 

LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., 674 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Apache 

Bohai Corp. LDC v. Texaco China BV, 480 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)). In 

order to maintain “arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes 

straightaway,” we engage in a “limited review” of arbitration decisions. Hall 

St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588 (2008). We do not vacate 

an award for a “mere mistake of fact or law,” Rain CII Carbon, 674 F.3d at 472

(quoting Apache, 480 F.3d at 401), and we have “no business weighing the 

merits of the grievance” or “considering whether there is equity in a particular 

claim,” United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 37 (1987) 

(quoting United Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568 (1960)). 

Rather, we may only vacate an award when it violates one of four grounds 

specified in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”): (1) “where the award was 

procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means,” (2) “where there was evident 

partiality or corruption in the arbitrators,” (3) “where the arbitrators were 

 Case: 15-11128 Document: 00513623704 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016
No. 15-11128

3

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.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)–(4).

Parker argues the arbitrator’s decision was “procured by corruption” and 

that the arbitrator acted with “evidence of partiality or corruption” in violation 

of the FAA. Parker Br. 11.1 To support his claim, Parker argues the arbitrator 

ignored conflicting statements given by Defendant’s witnesses regarding the 

events that immediately preceded his firing. Parker Br. 7–10. Construing 

Parker’s pro se briefs liberally, Parker appears to argue that the credibility of 

Defendant’s witnesses was so poor that there was no factual basis to support 

the arbitrator’s findings, and therefore the arbitrator acted with partiality or 

corruption. Parker Br. 12.

Parker’s argument invites us to reconsider the merits of his claim and to 

question the credibility determinations of the arbitrator. We decline to do so, 

as our review of arbitration decisions is “limited” and “exceedingly deferential.”

See Hall St., 552 U.S. at 588. Aside from rearguing the merits of his claim, 

Parker fails to advance any credible argument to show the arbitrator acted 

with corruption in violation of the FAA. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district 

court’s confirmation of the arbitration award.

 

1 Page numbers for Parker’s brief refer to the ECF page numbers and not to the 

printed page numbers on the physical brief.

 Case: 15-11128 Document: 00513623704 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2016