ILNews

7th Circuit affirms arbitration award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's confirmation of an arbitration award, but it denied the plaintiff recovery of attorney fees and costs because he will be reimbursed those under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

In Peter A. Prostyakov v. Masco Corporation, No. 06-3928, Prostyakov asked the federal appellate court to affirm his arbitration award against his former employer, Michigan-based Masco Corp. Masco appealed to vacate the award.

In 1992, Masco joined an Indiana and Moscow trade consortium founded after the fall of the Soviet Union. The building, plumbing, and cabinetry company wanted to develop a sales and distribution network in Russia. Masco hired Prostyakov, who was later appointed managing director and agent for the Moscow office.

Masco and Prostyakov's business relationship soured, which the appellate opinion does not detail, and Masco's president issued a company directive in April removing Prostyakov from his position. The two parties entered a settlement agreement which stated the following: both mutually agreed to release all claims either party could bring on acts that occurred before the agreement took effect; Indiana law would govern the interpretation of the agreement; future disputes would be settled by "private" arbitration; the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) would apply and govern the conduct of the arbitration; and neither party would seek to enforce the agreement through legal action.

In addition, the parties agreed to communicate to third parties that the business relationship end was amicable.

Prostyakov sought employment with a bank in Moscow after his termination, but was not hired because of problems with his labor book. In Russia, as a holdover from communist times, labor law requires every citizen entering the workforce to have one. This book records employment and explains why the worker is no longer at his or her former job and is given to the next employer upon hiring. When a worker is terminated or leaves a job, the labor book is to be returned to the worker.

Prostyakov was delayed in receiving his labor book back from Masco. When he received it, he noticed the company had falsified his termination date and stated he was fired, which was not what the two parties agreed to report in the settlement agreement.

Prostyakov tried to resolve the issue through arbitration, but Masco made no moves on the issue, so Prostyakov went through the Russian judicial system. In 2002, the Russian court determined Masco violated the country's labor code by falsifying the labor book entry. With that judgment, Prostyakov filed a claim for arbitration. The parties agreed on Indianapolis attorney Max J. Hittle Jr. - who was affiliated with the AAA - to arbitrate the claim. Hittle issued awards to both parties: Masco won on its counterclaim, determining under Indiana law that Prostyakov breached the settlement agreement by going to Russian court instead of arbitration; Hittle awarded in Prostyakov's favor by finding the delayed return and falsification of the labor book hurt Prostyakov's ability for employment. Because Indiana's conflict-of-law provisions required Hittle to apply the Russian labor code for an award, he ordered Masco to correct the labor book entry and awarded Prostyakov $780,000. Prostyakov petitioned to the District Court to affirm the arbitration, which it did.

The 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court's decision, finding Masco's claims on appeal to be without merit. Masco argued Hittle lacked proper authority to serve as arbitrator because he was affiliated with the AAA; the labor book was not arbitratable because it fell outside the scope of the settlement agreement; and Hittle fashioned improper monetary and equitable awards.

The settlement only released claims stemming from pre-existing acts at the time of the settlement agreement; the falsifying of the labor book came after the agreement, wrote Judge Michael Kanne.

Finally, Hittle abided by the Indiana choice-of-law provision and interpreted the agreement in good faith. Also, nothing in the settlement limited Hittle's authority to fashion the equitable award to Prostyakov.

Prostyakov wanted the 7th Circuit to award him attorney fees and costs regarding the appeal because he claimed Masco took this appeal only to delay the enforcement of the District Court judgment. Because the settlement agreement states the breaching party will be responsible for the other party's attorney fees and costs in claims, there is no need to award them to Prostyakov. Judge Kanne wrote the court trusts Masco will promptly pay Prostyakov what he is owed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT