UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Alan L. Myers, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-13316 

v. 

 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD 

Darden Restaurant Group, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [#25], AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD [#26] 

 Before the Court are Plaintiff Alan Myer’s Notice to Court of Arbitration 

Conclusion [Docket No. 24], Plaintiff’s Motion in Response to Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 25], and Defendant Darden 

Restaurant Group’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award [Docket No. 26]. No 

responses to any of the foregoing filings were submitted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

As stated in this Court’s Order dated February 13, 2015 [Docket No. 20], 

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that, while he was employed by the Olive Garden 

as a chef, he was verbally harassed by four employees. The employees were Kyle, 

Richard, Terry, and Drew. Plaintiff identifies as a bisexual black male. On January 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 292
2 

10, 2014, when Plaintiff removed his coat from a rack in the employee coatroom, 

he found a pair of women’s underpants on the hook beneath where his coat was 

placed. Plaintiff filed a grievance with General Manager Seth Petty after being 

sexually harassed three times. On January 14, 2014, Manager Fredrica Stephen 

contacted Plaintiff to notify him that he would be permitted to take “stress leave” 

with pay. Petty investigated the women’s underpants incident for two weeks and 

determined that the women’s underpants were placed by another employee, but he 

could not determine which employee. Petty gave Plaintiff the option to return to 

work or to remain on “stress leave” without pay until Plaintiff could find another 

Olive Garden location to which he could transfer. 

 Plaintiff alleges did not feel safe working at the same branch. Plaintiff filed 

a police report and a grievance with the Olive Garden’s Corporate Office. The 

Corporate Office also suggested that Plaintiff could return to work or stay on leave 

without pay. When Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, his pay stopped and he was told he would be transferred 

to the Livonia branch. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claimed Defendant violated of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to address sexual harassment 

and race discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliating 

against him. 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 293
3 

 In the Court’s February 13, 2015, Order, the Court granted Defendant’s 

Motion to Compel Arbitration, stayed the case until the conclusion of any 

arbitration proceedings, closed the case for statistical purposes, and retained 

jurisdiction in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 

1-16, for the purpose of confirming, vacating, or correcting any arbitration award 

upon motion of any party at the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. 

 The parties appeared before an independent arbitrator, David A. Kotzian, 

engaged in discovery, filed cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff 

also filed a Motion to Strike various exhibits attached to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. On December 23, 2015, Arbitrator Kotzian issued an 

Opinion and Award of Arbitrator Regarding Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (“Opinion and Award”). Arbitrator 

Kotzian granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, but he also 

granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, stating that Plaintiff failed to 

submit evidence “sufficient to support a legal claim under Title VII for sexual 

harassment, retaliation or race discrimination.” Artbitrator Kotzian awarded 

Plaintiff nothing. 

 On December 30, Plaintiff filed the Notice to Court of Arbitration 

Conclusion and the Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. The Notice to Court of Arbitration Conclusion is strictly informational 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 294
4 

and requires no action by the Court. With respect to the Motion in Response to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court notes that there is no 

pending Summary Judgment Motion. Instead, it appears to the Court that 

Plaintiff’s filing is a request that the Court vacate Arbitrator Kotzian’s Opinion and 

Award, and the Court will treat such filing as a motion to vacate (hereinafter, the 

“Motion to Vacate”). On January 12, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Confirm 

Arbitration Award. 

II. ANALYSIS 

As the Court concluded in its February 13, 2015, Order, the parties’ Dispute 

Resolution Process (“DRP”) provides that the parties agreed to go to arbitration 

regarding matters such as those raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint. The DRP also 

provided that the arbitration would be conducted according to the Employment 

Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The AAA 

states that “judgment upon the arbitration award may be entered in any federal or 

state court having jurisdiction.” See Doc. No. 26-4, PgID 287 (AAA excerpt, 

Rule 42(c)). Finally, the DRP provides: 

Either the Employee or the Company may bring an 

action in any court of competent jurisdiction to . . . 

confirm, modify, enforce or vacate an arbitration 

award, as may be permitted by law. 

(Doc. No. 26-2, PgID 267—DRP, Judicial Enforcement section) 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 295
5 

Consistent with the DRP, when the Court ordered this matter to arbitration, 

the Court retained jurisdiction of the matter, in accordance with Section 9 of the 

FAA, which provides: 

If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a 

judgment of the court shall be entered upon the 

award made pursuant to the arbitration, . . . then at 

any time within one year after the award is made any 

party to the arbitration may apply to the court so 

specified for an order confirming the award, and 

thereupon the court must grant such an order 

unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected 

as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. 

9 U.S.C. § 9 (emphasis added). As the Sixth Circuit has recognized, the FAA 

“presumes that arbitration awards will be confirmed.” Dawahare v. Spencer, 

210 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 

9). In fact, the Court must confirm the arbitrator’s award unless it is vacated, 

modified, or corrected, as prescribed by the FAA. See Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. 

Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581 (2008) (“Congress enacted the FAA to replace 

judicial indisposition to arbitration with a ‘national policy favoring [it] and 

plac[ing] arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts . . . The 

Act also supplies mechanisms for enforcing arbitration awards: a judicial decree 

confirming an award . . . Under the terms of §9, a court ‘must’ confirm an 

arbitration award . . .”). 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 296
6 

“It is well established that courts should play only a limited role in 

reviewing the decisions of arbitrators.” Dawahare, 210 F.3d at 669. A court 

may vacate an award only where it was: ( 1) procured by fraud, corruption 

or undue means; ( 2) when there is evidence that the arbitrators were partial 

or corrupt; ( 3) where the arbiter engaged in misconduct resulting in 

prejudice; or ( 4) where the arbitrators exceeded their power or so imperfectly 

executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter 

was not made. 9 U.S.C. §10. In other words, the Court may vacate an 

arbitration award only pursuant to the grounds stated in §10 (or §11) of the 

FAA, not on the merits of the decision. See Hall Street, 552 U.S. at 588-590 

(clarifying that §§10 and 11 of the FAA were the exclusive scope of review of 

an arbitration award and rejecting the assertion that the language of the FAA 

permits the review of an arbitration award for legal error); Grain v. Trinity 

Health, Mercy Health Services, Inc., 551 F.3d 374, 380 (6th Cir. 2008) 

(judicial review of an arbitration award on the legal merits is outside the scope of 

the FAA). 

In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff does not allege, nor does he submit any 

evidence that the arbitration award was procured by fraud, corruption or undue 

influence, or that the arbitrator was partial or corrupt, engaged in misconduct, 

or failed to make an award on the subject matter. The Court notes that, in his 

Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff does little more than assert that he disagrees with 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 297
7 

the Opinion and Award. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate 

should be denied. 

The Court also notes that Arbitrator Kotzian authored a ten (10) page 

Opinion and Award. The Opinion and Award contains an extensive analysis of 

the case background, the motions filed by the parties, and the legal claims 

presented by Plaintiff. Arbitrator Kotzian also sets forth the factual and legal 

analysis of Plaintiff’s claims in detail, including a reasoned explanation of why 

Plaintiff did not provide sufficient support for his legal claims. The Court finds 

that the Opinion and Award should be confirmed. 

Pursuant to §9 of the FAA, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate 

and grants Defendant’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. The Court also 

dismisses Plaintiff’s cause of action, with prejudice. 

III. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Response to Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment (i.e., Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate) [Docket No. 25] 

is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Confirm 

Arbitration Award [Docket No. 26] is GRANTED. 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 298
8 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

s/Denise Page Hood 

 DENISE PAGE HOOD 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: April 29, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of 

record on April 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-13316-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 299