The Arbitral Tribunal - Part 1, Chapter 4 - AAA Yearbook on Arbitration and the Law - 23rd Edition
About the Editors:
Stephen K. Huber is Professor Emeritus at the University of Houston Law Center, and has served as a visiting professor at the University of Texas, Rice University (Political Science), Pepperdine Law School (Dispute Resolution Program), and the University of East Africa (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania). He has degrees in law from the University of Chicago and Yale University, and a B.A. from Earlham College.
Professor Huber's teaching and scholarly interest have centered on business and commerce (Contracts), and the regulation thereof (Administrative Law, Regulation of Financial Intermediaries). Over the last decade, his writings have focused on private binding dispute resolution proceedings (Arbitration). Teaching materials include: Stephen K. Huber & Maureen A. Weston, Arbitration: Cases and Materials (3d ed. LexisNexis 2011); Wendy Trachte-Huber & Stephen K. Huber, Mediation and Negotiation: Reaching Agreement in Law and Business (2d ed. LexisNexis 2007). Mr. Huber is a member of the State Bar of Texas, and the editor of Alternative Resolutions, the quarterly journal of the Dispute Resolution Section. He is the author of numerous publications relating to arbitration.
Ben H. Sheppard, Jr. is a Distinguished Lecturer and Director of the A.A. White Dispute Resolution Center at the University of Houston Law Center. From 1969 through 2005 he practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. where he was a partner and co-chair of the firm's international dispute resolution practice. His practice focused on litigation and arbitration, both as counsel and as arbitrator. He has served in international and domestic arbitrations as sole arbitrator, tribunal chair, party-appointed arbitrator and on tripartite tribunals selected from institutional rosters.
He was chair of AAA/ICDR task force that promulgated the 2006 amendment to the ICDR International Arbitration Rules that established a pre-arbitral emergency arbitrator procedure. He was the author of the report and recommendation to the ABA House of Delegates in support of the 2004 Revision to the AAA/ABA Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes. He chaired one of the two working groups that promulgated the CPR Protocol on Disclosure of Documents and Presentation of Witnesses in Commercial Arbitration. He is a past chair of the Disputes Division of the ABA Section of International Law and for five years served as editor-in-chief of The International Arbitration News. He is co-editor, with Lawrence W. Newman, and a contributing author to Take the Witness: Cross-Examination in International Arbitration (Juris 2010).
He graduated with high honors from the University of Texas School of Law in 1968, and was law clerk to the Honorable Homer Thornberry, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 1968 to 1969.
Originally from: AAA Yearbook on Arbitration and the Law - 23rd Edition
4.01 Disqualification of Arbitrators: Evident Partiality and Related Grounds
Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2010)
An Arbitral award may be vacated on the basis of evident partiality only when there is actual bias or the facts establish a reasonable impression of partiality.
A flight engineer sued Japanese commercial air carrier, carrier’s subsidiary, and his employer, which provided contract flight crews to carrier, for violations of California’s whistleblower statute, wrongful termination, and emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for the carrier and subsidiary and compelled arbitration of all the claims against the employer. The district court confirmed the arbitration award in favor of the employer. The plaintiff appealed claiming that the arbitrator was biased against him because he had tried to disqualify him before and because of his race.
The Court of Appeals found that the confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of the employer was warranted. Hawaii law confines judicial review of an arbitration award to the strictest possible limits because legislative policy encourages arbitration of disputes. Evident partiality of an arbitrator exists only when there is actual bias on the part of the arbitrator or the facts demonstrate a reasonable impression of partiality. An arbitrator does not exceed his authority merely because he misunderstands or incorrectly applies the law. An award may be vacated only where the arbitrators intentionally and plainly disregarded the relevant substantive law.
Chapter 4
The Arbitral Tribunal
4.01 Disqualification of Arbitrators: Evident Partiality and Related Grounds
4.02 Structural Bias: Non-neutral Neutrals
4.03 Failure of Arbitral Selection Provisions