Post by havayankee on Jan 16, 2014 9:58:06 GMT -5
A-Rod is a sore loser, but baseball fans already knew that. In a ruling Saturday, independent arbitrator Fredric Horowitz reduced Alex Rodriguez's suspension from Major League Baseball for use of performance-enhancing drugs to 162 games (plus the 2014 postseason) from 211 games. Yet on Monday the New York Yankee star followed through on his threat to sue the league and its players' union in federal court to overturn the suspension.
Here's some free legal advice, A-Rod: Take a deep breath, accept the decision and cut your losses. And to protect yourself from monetary sanctions, you should immediately withdraw your lawsuit and move on with your
Under federal labor law, arbitrators' decisions are final; they have broad discretion to decide cases brought before them under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. This is one of those cases. A-Rod has had his day in court. Mr. Horowitz's decision is final and binding on all parties. It's done. The federal courts are not a court of appeals for arbitration cases.
In an unbroken line of precedent cases, the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have demonstrated a singular unwillingness to second-guess industrial arbitrators. They have also regularly expressed the intent to impose monetary sanctions on parties who seek to overturn those decisions by suing in federal court.
Arbitration awards are final and binding on the parties. Major League Baseball's contract with the players union expressly says this, and the courts will honor that agreement. If the arbitrator had overturned the league's suspension of A-Rod in its entirety, then that decision would have also been final.
The advantages of arbitration over litigation are self-evident. Arbitration is cheaper, quicker and a much more efficient way to resolve disputes. But the trade-off for this mechanism is the finality of decisions. In agreeing to arbitrate a disagreement, the parties are forgoing an appeal if they lose.
The Federal Arbitration Act sets out four express grounds for vacating an arbitrator's decision: corruption, evident partiality, refusing to hear evidence, or arbitrators exceeding their authority. The courts have interpreted these exceptions very narrowly, and none of them exist in A-Rod's case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where A-Rod's challenge to the arbitrator's opinion might ultimately be decided, has stated unequivocally that "arbitration awards are subject to very narrow review." The court reasoned that the aim of such limited review is to support the "twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation."
As for monetary sanctions, the federal appeals court for the 11th Circuit has expressed its view in no uncertain terms that "a realistic threat of sanctions may discourage baseless litigation over arbitration awards and help fulfill the purposes of the pro-arbitration policy contained in the FAA."
The following passage from that court's reasoning in its 2006 decision in Harbert v. Hercules Steel Co. is particularly telling with regard to A-Rod:
"When a party who loses an arbitration award assumes a never-say-die attitude and drags the dispute through the court system without an objectively reasonable belief it will prevail, the promise of arbitration is broken. Arbitration's allure is dependent upon the arbitrator being the last decision-maker in all but the most unusual cases. The more cases there are . . . like this one, in which the arbitrator is only the first stop along the way, the less arbitration there will be. If arbitration is to be a meaningful alternative to litigation, the parties must be able to trust that the arbitrator's decision will be honored sooner instead of later."
Mr. Rodriguez has the deep pockets necessary to mount a serious legal challenge to the arbitrator's decision. He has filed his lawsuit in federal court and seems intent on pursuing a "never-say-die" course of action as a matter of principle.
But the courts should not allow A-Rod to treat Mr. Horowitz's decision as merely a first stop on a trail of endless litigation. Meaningful monetary sanctions should be imposed on A-Rod and his legal team for pursuing this litigation in federal court to overturn the arbitration decision despite the compelling legal authority on the finality of arbitral awards. The integrity of arbitration in Major League Baseball is at stake.
Mr. Skoning is a retired labor and employment lawyer in Chicago.
Here's some free legal advice, A-Rod: Take a deep breath, accept the decision and cut your losses. And to protect yourself from monetary sanctions, you should immediately withdraw your lawsuit and move on with your
Under federal labor law, arbitrators' decisions are final; they have broad discretion to decide cases brought before them under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. This is one of those cases. A-Rod has had his day in court. Mr. Horowitz's decision is final and binding on all parties. It's done. The federal courts are not a court of appeals for arbitration cases.
In an unbroken line of precedent cases, the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have demonstrated a singular unwillingness to second-guess industrial arbitrators. They have also regularly expressed the intent to impose monetary sanctions on parties who seek to overturn those decisions by suing in federal court.
Arbitration awards are final and binding on the parties. Major League Baseball's contract with the players union expressly says this, and the courts will honor that agreement. If the arbitrator had overturned the league's suspension of A-Rod in its entirety, then that decision would have also been final.
The advantages of arbitration over litigation are self-evident. Arbitration is cheaper, quicker and a much more efficient way to resolve disputes. But the trade-off for this mechanism is the finality of decisions. In agreeing to arbitrate a disagreement, the parties are forgoing an appeal if they lose.
The Federal Arbitration Act sets out four express grounds for vacating an arbitrator's decision: corruption, evident partiality, refusing to hear evidence, or arbitrators exceeding their authority. The courts have interpreted these exceptions very narrowly, and none of them exist in A-Rod's case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where A-Rod's challenge to the arbitrator's opinion might ultimately be decided, has stated unequivocally that "arbitration awards are subject to very narrow review." The court reasoned that the aim of such limited review is to support the "twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation."
As for monetary sanctions, the federal appeals court for the 11th Circuit has expressed its view in no uncertain terms that "a realistic threat of sanctions may discourage baseless litigation over arbitration awards and help fulfill the purposes of the pro-arbitration policy contained in the FAA."
The following passage from that court's reasoning in its 2006 decision in Harbert v. Hercules Steel Co. is particularly telling with regard to A-Rod:
"When a party who loses an arbitration award assumes a never-say-die attitude and drags the dispute through the court system without an objectively reasonable belief it will prevail, the promise of arbitration is broken. Arbitration's allure is dependent upon the arbitrator being the last decision-maker in all but the most unusual cases. The more cases there are . . . like this one, in which the arbitrator is only the first stop along the way, the less arbitration there will be. If arbitration is to be a meaningful alternative to litigation, the parties must be able to trust that the arbitrator's decision will be honored sooner instead of later."
Mr. Rodriguez has the deep pockets necessary to mount a serious legal challenge to the arbitrator's decision. He has filed his lawsuit in federal court and seems intent on pursuing a "never-say-die" course of action as a matter of principle.
But the courts should not allow A-Rod to treat Mr. Horowitz's decision as merely a first stop on a trail of endless litigation. Meaningful monetary sanctions should be imposed on A-Rod and his legal team for pursuing this litigation in federal court to overturn the arbitration decision despite the compelling legal authority on the finality of arbitral awards. The integrity of arbitration in Major League Baseball is at stake.
Mr. Skoning is a retired labor and employment lawyer in Chicago.