A federal district court in Texas has held that parties may contract for expanded arbitral review of arbitration awards without running afoul of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc..

In Redish v. Yellow Transp., Inc., No. 3-07-CV-1065-O, 2008 WL 2572658 (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2008), Redish filed a federal employment discrimination suit against former employer Yellow. Yellow moved to dismiss the suit or stay litigation in favor of arbitration in accordance with an arbitration agreement between the parties.

The Court addressed the agreement's provisions for expanded review of the arbitrator's decision. Redish argued that this provision rendered the agreement unenforceable in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., __ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008) (declining to enforce a contractual provision for expanded judicial review of arbitral decisions beyond the grounds contained in the Federal Arbitration Act).

According to the Court, using a second arbitrator in a manner analogous to a civil appeals court was clearly distinguishable from the type of review at issue in Hall Street. The Court observed that Hall Street only forbade expanded judicial review of arbitration awards, not expanded arbitral review of awards as provided for in the Redish-Yellow