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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT