An employee filed a grievance complaining that the operator of

grocery stores, King Soopers, created a hostile work environment. The

arbitrator who heard the case concluded that the dispute was arbitrable

and found in favor of the employee, and King Soopers neither complied

with the award nor sought to vacate it. After expiration of the time to

seek to vacate the award, the union filed its complaint in federal district

court to enforce the award and filed an amended complaint eleven days

later. King Soopers then answered that the award was unenforceable.

 

The court ruled that King Soopers’ affirmative defenses were timebarred

because they were not raised as the basis for an action to vacate

the award within the 90-day limitations period under Colorado statute.

The court nevertheless declined to enforce the award for other reasons.

 

The court of appeals cited to relevant precedent and decisions of

other circuits and agreed with the district court in finding that King

Soopers affirmative defenses were time barred. The court reiterated that

there was nothing irregular about ruling that a potential meritorious

argument is barred by delay in raising it. The court distinguished the

cases relied upon by King Soopers. In some of the cases, timeliness was

not an issue, and in others, the court found that King Soopers

misinterpreted the opinion.

 

 

a. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union

No. 969 v. Babcock & Wilcox, 826 F.2d 962, 964–65 (10th Cir.

1987) (refusing to consider the merits of B&W’s defenses

because B&W did not move to vacate the arbitral award within

the limitations period as set forth in the state statute).

 

b. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass’n, Local Union No. 36 v.

Systemaire, Inc., 241 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 2001) (refraining

from addressing the merits of Systemaire’s defenses and granting

summary judgment for the union based solely on the

untimeliness of Systemaire’s challenge).

 

c. Sullivan v. Lemoncello, 36 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 1994)

(holding that Lemoncello was barred from attacking the awards

because he had not challenged them within the required time

period)

 

d. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 125 (1979) (“[it] goes

without saying that statutes of limitations often make it

impossible to enforce what were otherwise perfectly valid

claims. But that is their very purpose . . . .”).

 

e. James Valley Grain v. David, 802 N.W.2d 158 (N.D. 2011)

(motion to confirm arbitration award does not extend the 90-day

period governing a motion to vacate an arbitration award).

 

 

 

The plaintiffs were former stateroom attendants who brought wage

claims against the defendant, Celebrity Cruises, Inc. The attendants

originally demanded arbitration, and Celebrity Cruises moved to dismiss

on the ground that the attendants failed to comply with their collective

bargaining agreements grievance procedure, which was a precondition to

submitting a dispute for arbitration. The arbitrator granted Celebrity

Cruises’ motion. When the attendants sought to vacate the arbitration

award, the district court dismissed the suit as barred by the statute of
limitations, and the attendants appealed.