Contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., a federal district court in Louisiana has engaged in expanded judicial review of an award as specified within an arbitration agreement.

In Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Barker, Civ. A. No. 07-1414, 2008 WL 818949 (W.D. La. Mar. 26, 2008), Barker and Rent-A-Center arbitrated an employment dispute. The parties' pre-dispute agreement provided for trial court review of any resulting award, applying the standards of appellate court review.

The arbitrator rendered an award in favor of Barker, finding that Rent-A-Center terminated Barker in violation of state and federal statutes once she requested unpaid medical leave during her pregnancy. Rent-A-Center petitioned a federal district court for review of the award, maintaining that it was based on clearly erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law.

As a threshold matter, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's award based on the express provisions of the arbitration agreement. According to the Court, Fifth Circuit precedent allowed parties to "agree to a broader judicial review of an arbitration award" than is typically provided for under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See Gateway Technologies, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 64 F.3d 993, 996-997 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that the federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements implied that parties could agree to expanded judicial review of awards without offending the FAA).

The Court then held that the award was not based on clearly erroneous findings of fact. The Court found substantial support in the record that Rent-A-Center had made accommodations for employees that were not pregnant that were not provided to Barker, and that Rent-A-Center had in fact terminated Barker after giving the company notice that she was pregnant and needed unpaid medical leave.

Similarly, the Court also determined that the arbitrator did not draw clearly erroneous conclusions of law. Rent-A-Center argued that its conduct did not constitute a violation of federal or state law, but the Court found that the arbitrator legitimately found evidence of the violations in testimony offered by both Barker and a Rent-A-Center employee.

While this Court determined that it had jurisdiction to conduct the expanded judicial review of the award provided for in the arbitration agreement, the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., suggests that courts cannot be granted jurisdiction to review awards through the parties' agreement, but can only review awards for errors on the grounds provided for within the FAA. 552 U.S. ____, 2008 WL 762537, *4 (Mar. 25, 2008) (holding that the grounds within 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11 contain the exclusive grounds for vacating or modifying an award).