Opinion ID: 62855
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Provide Written Reasons

Text: Rogers argued that the arbitrator failed to issue rulings on his personal injury and false advertising claims. He claimed that this violated the HDRP rules and the AAA code of ethics for arbitrators.2 1 In his post-judgment motion, Rogers raised the issue of KBR failing to register him with the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. This was not alleged in his motion to vacate. Thus, it will only be reviewed under the standard for a post-judgment motion. See infra. 2 In Rogers’s motion to vacate, he alleged that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law pertaining to his personal injury and false advertising claims by not providing written reasons for its award. In his post-judgment motion, this alleged error in failing to provide written reasons was characterized as misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, as opposed to a manifest disregard of the law. In his briefs on appeal, Rogers only claims that the arbitrator’s failure to provide written reasons was misconduct, as he alleged in his postjudgment motion, not a manifest disregard of the law as he argued in his motion to vacate. Thus, KBR reasonably argues that this Court should review the arbitrator’s failure to provide written reasons under the standard for a post-judgment motion. However, as a pro se litigant, 7 No. 08-20036 The HDRP rules require that “[t]he arbitrator shall write a statement of reasons for the award if requested to do so in the request to initiate proceedings or in the answering statement.” In his motion to vacate, Rogers failed to cite any request for a written statement of reasons in the request to initiate proceedings or in an answering statement. The AAA code of ethics only notes that “[t]he arbitrator should, after careful deliberation, decide all issues submitted for determination.” The plain language of this ethical rule does not require a written statement regarding each claim. Clearly, the arbitrator decided Rogers’s tort and false advertising claims by not awarding him anything for those claims. It does not appear that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded those rules. Even if the arbitrator had, there is nothing to show that a failure to provide written reasons resulted in a “significant injustice”, which is required to grant relief. Am. Laser Vision, P.A. v. Laser Vision Inst., L.L.C., 487 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, the arbitrator’s decision was rationally inferrable from the employment agreement and rules.