Collaku v. Temco Service Industries, Inc.

Background

Aferdita Collaku brought retaliation and discrimination claims against Temco Service Industries, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. The parties agreed to stay that case and arbitrate the claims under a collective-bargaining agreement between Temco and Collaku’s union. The arbitrator issued an award in January 2018.

Collaku alleged that coworker Rexhep Shtylla harassed her because of her gender, that Temco supervisors did not respond adequately to her complaints, and that Temco terminated her after a physical fight with Shtylla. She asserted two claims under the New York City Human Rights Law: gender discrimination and retaliation. She voluntarily withdrew a third claim for national-origin discrimination.

The arbitrator ruled against Collaku, finding that her allegations about Shtylla’s comments and the physical incident were not supported by the evidence. The arbitrator also rejected Collaku’s account that Temco treated her complaints and conduct less favorably than comparable conduct by male employees.

Issue and Governing Standard

After Temco removed the case to federal court, the court required Collaku to amend her petition to assert a claim under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Collaku argued that the arbitration award should be vacated under Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act because the arbitrator had exceeded her authority or had failed to issue a mutual, final, and definite decision on Collaku’s gender-discrimination claim.

The court explained that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. A court generally must confirm an award if the arbitrator was interpreting and applying the collective-bargaining agreement within the scope of her authority. An award is not subject to vacatur merely because it contains factual mistakes or incorrect legal interpretations. The party seeking vacatur bears the burden of proof, and the required showing is very demanding.

Analysis

The court rejected Collaku’s argument that the arbitrator had failed to decide the discrimination claim. Although two statements in the award could have suggested that the arbitrator addressed only termination-related retaliation or discrimination, the court considered the entire written award rather than only its concluding section.

The court found that the arbitrator addressed both theories supporting Collaku’s gender-discrimination claim. First, the arbitrator considered Collaku’s allegation that Shtylla harassed her based on her gender, but found that witnesses did not corroborate her account and concluded that no sexually harassing behavior had occurred. Second, the arbitrator considered Collaku’s allegation that supervisors ignored her complaints and treated her more harshly than male employees involved in fights, but rejected the factual basis for that theory based on the evidence and witness credibility.

The court held that the award’s failure to mention the pre-termination discrimination claim expressly in its concluding section did not mean that the arbitrator had ignored the claim. The award’s language was confusing, but it was not inexplicable and contained a plausible basis for the result. The court also stated that it could not revisit the arbitrator’s credibility determinations.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted Temco’s cross-petition to confirm the award. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.