Cases compared
Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies vs. Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One
No. 26-5705No. 26-5710
Side by side
| Fact | Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc. | Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLC |
|---|---|---|
| Docket | Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.26-5705 | Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLC26-5710 |
| Status | Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.Before Arguments | Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLCBefore Arguments |
| Date | Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.October Term 2026 (2026–2027) | Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLCOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) |
| Question presented | Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.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. | Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLC1. Whether the Tenth Circuit, in its Order and Judgment in Appendix G, created a conflict with this Court’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment by affirming the dismissal of a disabled pro se litigant’s civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Violence Against Women Act on waiver and inadequate-briefing grounds, despite the denial of a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) and reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby denying meaningful access to the courts in conflict with Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). 2. Whether the Tenth Circuit, in its Order and Judgment in Appendix G, created a conflict with this Court’s decision in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), by affirming the district court’s judgment without reaching the merits of well-documented perjury and fraud-on-the-court claims, thereby affirming the denial of any evidentiary hearing on those claims in violation of due process. 3. Whether the Tenth Circuit, in its Order and Judgment in Appendix G, created a conflict with this Court’s authority by affirming the dismissal of the litigants federal civil rights claims on procedural grounds, thereby resulting in indirect permission of Colorado statute to authorize or encourage private discrimination in housing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and the Fair Housing Act, in a manner that permits the state statute to supersede the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3600, 3604, and 3615, contrary to this Court’s decisions in cases such as Heitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), and Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). |
| Summary | Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.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. 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. | Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLCShannon Perry, a disabled self-represented litigant, asks the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision to throw out her federal housing and civil-rights claims for problems with her written arguments. She says lower courts denied her disability accommodations and a court-appointed representative (guardian ad litem), and failed to hear her allegations of perjury and fraud. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Civil Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Civil Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.