Workplace discrimination arbitration
Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Kevin Lee Biglow asks the Supreme Court to review a Tenth Circuit decision affirming an arbitration award that dismissed his Title VII workplace-discrimination claims.
- What's at stake
- Biglow's challenge to the dismissal of his workplace-discrimination claims remains unresolved at the Supreme Court.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He argues the arbitrator lacked authority to decide those claims, failed to address his objections, was improperly appointed, and denied him a fair chance to present evidence.
Biglow's petition cites Federal Arbitration Act rules on when a court may set aside an arbitration award.
Question presented
1. Whether an arbitral tribunal exceeds its powers under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) by dismissing Title VII civil rights claims on limitations grounds where the parties' contract and federal law expressly carve out such claims from mandatory arbitration. 2. Whether a court of appeals violates its duty of meaningful judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act by affirming an arbitration award where the tribunal declined to rule on the petitioner's threshold jurisdictional submissions during a fifty-four-day period preceding the award. 3. Whether an arbitration award must be vacated under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) where the arbitral forum appointed an arbitrator whom the petitioner had contractually struck from the panel, and the successor arbitrator adopted the disqualified arbitrator's procedural rulings without an independent hearing. 4. Whether an arbitration award must be vacated under 9 U.S.C. §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) where the award rests on factual findings that are demonstrably refuted by the certified administrative record and the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to present evidence.
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the petition. No oral argument or decision window is set before the Court grants review.
Documents
Docket activity
Case data updated: title
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What does Biglow say went wrong in the arbitration?
- He says the arbitrator lacked authority to dismiss his Title VII claims and did not rule on his jurisdiction objections during the 54 days before the award. He also argues that an arbitrator he had struck was appointed, the successor adopted earlier procedural rulings without a new hearing, and he was denied a fair chance to present evidence.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.