Opinion ID: 2326847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Generally Applicable Legal Principles

Text: [J]udicial review of arbitration awards is limited. Laszlo N. Tauber, M.D. & Assocs. v. Trammell Crow Real Estate Servs., 738 A.2d 1214, 1217 (D.C. 1999) (citing Shaff v. Skahill, 617 A.2d 960, 963 (D.C.1992)). Our review of the confirmation or the vacation of an arbitration award is de novo. See id. at 1216. Arbitration in the District of Columbia is governed by the District of Columbia Uniform Arbitration Act, D.C.Code §§ 16-4301 to 4319 [(1997)]. See Shaff, 617 A.2d at 962. Section 16-4311 of that Act limits the permissible grounds for vacating an arbitration award. See Tauber, 738 A.2d at 1217. Where . . . a party has not sought to vacate an arbitrator's award on statutorily-recognized grounds pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-4311 . . . courts cannot set aside such awards for errors of law or fact made by the arbitrator. Shaff, 617 A.2d at 963. One of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award is that the arbitrator has exceeded his or her authority. See D.C.Code § 16-4311(a)(3) (1997). In reviewing whether an arbitrator has exceeded his powers pursuant to § 16-4311(a)(3), we do not review [the] arbitration award on the merits. Tauber, 738 A.2d at 1217 (quoting Poire v. Kaplan, 491 A.2d 529, 534 (D.C.1985) (further citations omitted and internal quotations omitted)). If an arbitrator `rules only on matters within the scope of the governing arbitration clauses, he [will] not exceed his authority. . . .' Id. (citing Poire, 491 A.2d at 533-34) (footnote omitted). An exception has been recognized to the requirement that an arbitration award can be vacated only on statutory grounds. It is well settled that an arbitration award may not stand if it contravenes paramount considerations of public policy. Lopata v. Coyne, 735 A.2d 931, 938 (D.C.1999) (quoting City of DeKalb v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1236, 182 Ill.App.3d 367, 131 Ill.Dec. 492, 538 N.E.2d 867, 870 (1989)). The refusal to enforce the arbitrator's decision on public policy grounds requires `some explicit public policy' that is `well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.' Id. (quoting United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFLCIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 43, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987)) (further citations omitted).