Coady v. Ashcraft & Gerel
223 F.3d 1 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Arbitrators exceed their authority under an arbitration clause limited to resolving 'ambiguities or questions of interpretation' when they make factual findings, apply contract terms to facts, or calculate damages, particularly after the parties have stipulated to the meaning of the relevant contract terms.
Facts:
- In 1989, Edward Paul Coady joined the law firm Ashcraft & Gerel, eventually becoming the managing attorney of its Boston office.
- Coady's employment agreement provided for a bonus based on the Boston office's net profits, but it was capped by the amount of a 'senior partner's draw' for the same year.
- The agreement contained a narrow arbitration clause, authorizing arbitration only for 'any ambiguities or questions of interpretation of this contract.'
- In early 1997, disputes arose over Coady's compensation, with Coady alleging that Ashcraft & Gerel deliberately manipulated the senior partner draw to artificially lower the cap on his bonus.
- Coady claimed the firm accomplished this by improperly deferring income from 1997 to 1998 and by failing to attribute income from an affiliated firm.
- After unsuccessful negotiations, Coady informed Ashcraft & Gerel of his intent to submit the employment issues to arbitration.
Procedural Posture:
- Ashcraft & Gerel filed a complaint for damages and declaratory judgment against Coady in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Coady filed an application to compel arbitration in Massachusetts state court.
- Ashcraft & Gerel removed Coady's action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and moved to transfer venue to the D.C. court.
- The Massachusetts district court denied the motion to transfer and ordered the parties to arbitration, but limited the scope to questions of contract interpretation.
- An arbitration panel issued an award in Coady's favor, finding the firm manipulated its books and awarding Coady an additional $45,000 bonus.
- The Massachusetts district court denied Ashcraft & Gerel's motion to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award.
- Ashcraft & Gerel, as appellant, appealed the district court's confirmation of the award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Coady as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do arbitrators exceed their authority under an arbitration clause strictly limited to resolving 'ambiguities or questions of interpretation of this contract' when they proceed to make factual findings regarding a breach, apply the contract terms to those facts, and calculate damages after the parties have stipulated to the meaning of the contract's terms?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Yes, arbitrators exceed their authority under such a limited clause when they move beyond interpretation. The arbitration clause was narrowly confined to resolving ambiguities and questions of interpretation, not to applying the contract or deciding issues of breach. Once Ashcraft & Gerel stipulated during the arbitration hearing to Coady's interpretation of how the bonus should be calculated, no ambiguity or question of interpretation remained for the arbitrators to resolve. Their subsequent actions—making factual findings that the firm manipulated its accounting and then calculating the bonus amount owed—were matters of applying the contract to facts and determining a breach, which fell outside the scope of their contractually delegated authority. A court reviews the question of arbitrability de novo where, as here, the parties did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate arbitrability, meaning the arbitrators' own view of their authority is not entitled to deference.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that arbitration is a creature of contract and an arbitrator's authority is strictly limited by the terms of the arbitration agreement. It highlights the critical distinction between a narrow clause, which only allows for contract interpretation, and a broad clause that permits arbitrators to decide all disputes 'arising out of' the contract, including breach and damages. The case serves as a precedent for vacating arbitral awards where arbitrators stray beyond their specifically enumerated powers. It solidifies the court's role, as established in First Options v. Kaplan, in determining the scope of arbitrability de novo unless the parties have explicitly agreed to arbitrate that specific question.
