UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

___________________________________ ) RO G ER B. H AR G RA VE , ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0682 (JD B) ) AC S HC M STA TE & LOC AL ) SOLU TIO NS, ) ) Defendan t. )

___________________________________ )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pla int if f R og e r B . H argra

ve , p ro c e e din g pr o s e , h a s f ile d a mot ion to a pp e a l th e a dv e rs e judgme nt of the ar

bitrator in this case. D efe ndant ACS HCM S tate & L ocal Solutions (“ACS”) opposes the motion. For the rea sons stated, plaintiff’s motion will be denied a nd the ca se will be dismiss ed. I . BA CKGROUND Har g rave was a

n at-will employ ee of

ACS who signed a

n ag ree ment shortly

afte r he w as hired to re solve any

employ ment dispute throug h ACS’s Dispute Resolution P lan (“ DRP”). See AC S’ Mo tio n to Di smi ss, Ex. A -2 (“ Ac c e pta nc e of , a nd Agre e me nt t o, AC S’ s D isp ute Resolution P lan” ( “Ac cepta nce” )). The Acc eptanc e that Ha rg rave signe d states in pertinent pa rt
a s f oll ow s: I u n d e r s t an d

an d a g r e e th atth e D R P w i l l b e th e e x c l u s i v e m e an s f o r r e s o l v i n g an y dis pute or c la im c on c e rn ing
. . . th e te rm s a nd c on dit ion s o f my

e mpl oy me nt w ith [ACS ]. . . . A decision and awa rd of the a

rbitrator . . . sha ll be exclusive, final and binding on both parties . . . . I understand that by

signingthis document, Iam wa ivi ngany

ri g ht I mig ht o the rw ise have to h ave a jur y or jud g e re so lve any

c la im-2-

Imight have ag ainst Affiliated Computer Ser vices. . . . I

understand a

nd ag ree that employ

ment is at the mutual consent of both ACS and me. I understand that either A CS or Ican te rminate the e mploy ment relationship at will , at any time, for any rea son or no re ason, with or without cause or adva nce notice
. Id. ACS terminated Har g rave ’s employ ment in March 2005 a

nd in Febr

uary 2008, Har g rave filed an a ction in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia alleg ing wrong ful termination. SeeNotice of

Removal, Ex. 1 (Com plaint filed in Superior Court for the District of Columbia). Assertingdiversity

jurisdiction, ACS remove d the ca se to this Court and filed a motion under 9 U.S.C. § 4 to compel arbitration in ac corda nce w ith the Acceptance that Har g rave had sig ned. ACS sought to either dismiss the complaint or stay the proc eeding s pendingthe ar bitration decision. Ha

rg rave consente d to a stay of the proc eeding s befor e this Court for the purpose of proce edingwith arbitration. The a rbitration proc ess, in which Ha rg rave participated pro se, c oncluded with a f inal order by the ar bitrator dismissing all of Ha rg rave ’s claims with prejudice
. See Four th Status Report, J une 19, 2009, Ex. 1 (Arbitration “Or der on A CS’s Moti on to Dismiss and F inal Awar d,” J une 1, 2009 (“ Arbitrator ’s Awa rd”) ). The a

rbitrator c oncluded that the e vidence showed that Har g rave was a

n at-will employ ee a

nd that Har g rave ’s alleg ations of wrong ful termination fa iled to state a c laim upon which re lief could be g rante d. See Ar bit rator ’s Aw ard

a t 4. She a lso conclude d that any

intended cla im of rac e discrimination fa iled to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d beca

use Ha rg rave did not tim ely

pursue his administrative re medies as r equire d by law. Id. at 4-5. F inally , she conc luded that any intended cla im for worke r’s c ompensation-3-

reta liation was not sufficiently pled, and in any

case was ba

rre d by the applica

ble statute of limit ations. Id. at 5. After beingnotified that the ar bitration had conc luded in a fina l awar d, this Court i ssued an orde r re quiring Har g rave to show cause why the ca se should not be dismissed. SeeOrde r, J une 23, 2009. In response , Har g rave moved for le ave to a ppeal the a

rbitrator’ s awa

rd. Ha rgra ve ’s mot ion

state s th at he ha d “ a ssume d th a t th e sc he du lin g or de r w ou ld c omm e nc e , unti l all final depositions etc we re r ece ived, written summary etc.” Motion for L eave to Appeal J udg ment ¶ 1. The motion furthe r appe ars to state that Hargrave filed a written summary on J une 3, 2009, but the ar

bitrator’s de cision and aw ard w as date d J une 1, 2009. See id. ¶¶ 2- 3. Finally , the motion asserts that in Marc h 2005, Har g rave sent a letter of complaint to ACS’s Ethics Offic e, which the Ethics Offic e did not forwa rd to the EEOC. See id. ¶ 4. I I . DI SCUS SI ON As the Sup re me Court

ha s e xpla ine d: [W ]here the pa

rty has agree d to arbitrate , he or she , in effe ct, has re linquished much of th[e] . . . practical va lue [of havinga cour t reviewthe ar

bitrator’s decision]. The party

still can a sk a cour

t to review the arbitrator’s dec ision, but the cour t will set that decision aside only in very unusual circ umstances. See, e .g. , 9 U.S.C. § 10 (awar d procur ed by corr uption, fraud, or

undue mea

ns; arbitrator exceede d his powers) . . . . First Options of

Chicago, Inc. v . Kaplan , 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995). F eder al law pr ovides that only in the narr ow circ umstances listed below ma y a district cour

t set aside an a

rbitrator’ s de c isi on : (1 ) whe re the awa

rd wa s p ro c ur e d b y

c or ru pti on , f ra ud , o r u nd ue me ans ; (2 ) whe re the re wa s e vid e nt p art ia lity or c or ru pti on in t he arb itr a tor s, or

e ith e r o f t

he m;-4-

(3 ) w h er e t h e a rb i tra t o rs we re gu i l ty o f m i s co n d

u cti nre fu s i n g t o p o s t

p o n e t h e h ea ri n g, upon sufficie nt cause shown, or in re fusing to hear evidenc e per

tinent and mater ial to the controve rsy ; or of any

other misbehavior

by which the r ights of a

ny party have be en prejudice d; or (4) whe re the arbitrators exceede d their powe rs, or so imperf ectly executed them that a mutual, final, a

nd definite a

war d upon the subject matter submitt ed wa s not made. 9 U.S.C. § 10. In this case, it is undisputed that Hargrave ag ree d to arbitrate his employ ment disputes or claims. Althoug h he appe als the ar bitrator’s de cision, his moti on does not offe r any alleg ations or fa cts to sugg est that the ar bitration proce edingwas infe cted with cor ruption, fra

ud, undue means, pa rtiality , or misconduct by the ar bitrator ca

using pr ejudice to Ha

rg rave , or that the
arb itr ator e xce e de d h e r p ow e rs or

imp e rf e c tly e xec ute d th e m. Wh ile his mot ion c ou ld b e re a d to imply that he wa s surprised to lea rn that a motion to dismis s may be dec ided without taking evidenc e, such a

surprise f

alls well short of evide nce of prejudicia l misconduct by the ar bitrator. Har g rave ’s only

other point — that ACS did not forward his discrimination complaint to the EEOC — is mispl ace d, as it is Harg rave ’s burde n to lodge a complaint with the prope r administrative authorities within the time allowed. F urthermor e, a r eview of the ar bitrator’s decision shows that she a llowed Har g rave an additional opportunity to amend his complaint. See Arbitrator ’s Awa

rd at 3. The n she consider ed and c orre ctly deter mined the only

claim that Har g rave has attempted to put bef ore this Court, the claim of wrong ful termination. Id. a t4
. In addition, appar ently

taking acc ount of Har g rave ’s pro se status, the arbitrator construe d and considere d additional claims and c orre ctly decide d them. Id. at 4-5. In short, the re cord be fore-5-

the Court aff

ords no basis consistent with 9 U.S.C. § 10 upon which to set aside the Ar bitrator’s Awar d. I I I . CONCL USI ON For the re asons stated a

bove, plaintiff’ s motion t o appea l the Arbitrator ’s Awa rd will be denied a nd this case will be dismissed. A sepa rate final orde r ac companies this memora ndum opinion.
/ s / J OHN D. B ATES Da t e: Oc t o b er

9 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge