## Facts

- Calvin White worked at an oil-refining facility beginning in 1998.
- After Valero acquired the facility in 2003, White became a Valero employee and signed an employment agreement that required binding arbitration of covered disputes.
- White made many workplace-harassment complaints to Valero and contended the company did not adequately address them.
- White sued Valero seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Under the arbitration clause, the dispute was sent to arbitration.
- During arbitration, the parties conducted discovery.
- Valero moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of White’s IIED claim; White opposed the motion.
- The arbitrator granted summary judgment for Valero, concluding Valero did not intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on White.
- In reaching that conclusion, the arbitrator relied in part on an internal investigation report reflecting that Valero made a good-faith effort to respond to White’s complaints.
- White asked the district court to vacate the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). He argued, among other things, that the arbitrator was biased and improperly restricted the presentation of evidence—especially by preventing depositions tied to the investigation report and by considering a report White claimed was inadmissible.

## Issues

1. Whether White established “evident partiality” by the arbitrator sufficient to vacate the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2).
2. Whether the arbitrator’s discovery and evidentiary rulings—particularly limits on depositions connected to the investigation report and consideration of that report—amounted to misconduct or “refusing to hear evidence” so as to deny a fundamentally fair hearing under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3).
3. Whether alleged legal or factual errors in the arbitrator’s IIED analysis justified vacatur given the FAA’s narrow review of arbitration awards.

## Decision

- The court denied White’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.
- The court held White did not provide specific facts showing the arbitrator was biased, as required to prove evident partiality.
- The court held the arbitration process gave White an adequate opportunity to present his case; the arbitrator’s management of discovery and evidence did not rise to misconduct under § 10(a)(3).
- The court held White’s objections largely challenged the arbitrator’s weighing of evidence and application of law, which do not permit vacatur under the FAA’s limited standards.

## Legal Principles

- Review of an arbitration award under the FAA is highly deferential; a court may vacate only on the narrow grounds listed in 9 U.S.C. § 10.
- “Evident partiality” requires more than dissatisfaction with rulings; the movant must point to concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the arbitrator was biased.
- Arbitrators have broad discretion over discovery and evidentiary matters; limits on depositions or reliance on a document generally do not justify vacatur unless they cause real prejudice and deny a fundamentally fair hearing.
- A court does not vacate an award for ordinary mistakes of fact or law; disagreements with the arbitrator’s reasoning or evaluation of the record are not enough.
- Claims framed as “failure to apply the law” must meet the FAA’s strict vacatur standards (such as showing the arbitrator exceeded his powers); a merits-style appeal is not available.

## Conclusion

In *White v. Valero Refining New Orleans, LLC*, the Eastern District of Louisiana refused to set aside an arbitration award that granted summary judgment to Valero on White’s IIED claim, concluding White did not show arbitrator bias, did not show that discovery or evidentiary limits deprived him of a fundamentally fair hearing, and at most alleged merits errors that the FAA does not allow a court to correct through vacatur.


White v. Valero Refining New Orleans, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86158 (2013)