Watertown recently fired one of its special education teachers after the man allegedly poked a female employee on the breast with a candy bar.
Prior to the teacher’s termination, the matter was submitted to an arbitrator. The arbitrator credited the woman’s version of events (which conflicted with the teacher’s testimony) and concluded that the town’s sexual harassment policy was violated. Shortly thereafter the town fired the teacher.
The ex-teacher sued the school committee. In his lawsuit, the man asked the superior court to vacate the arbitrator’s decision.
He argued, in part, that the arbitrator was too biased to render a fair decision. As evidence, he produced a video recorded in 2018 showing the arbitrator accepting an award and stating that she had been “among the throngs in…the women’s marches of the Trump era.”
The superior court judge held that this did not show “evident partiality” on the arbitrator’s part and ultimately dismissed the case.
Undeterred, the teacher appealed the decision.
The Appeals Court upheld the superior court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. According to the Appeals Court:
a reviewing court must vacate an arbitration award if there was “evident partiality” by an arbitrator. Evident partiality is more than just the appearance of possible bias. Rather, evident partiality means a situation in which a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to an arbitration. There are several factors helpful for determining whether there was evident partiality; most involve analyzing whether the arbitrator had a prior relationship with one of the parties or a personal interest in the proceedings. The plaintiff does not allege that the arbitrator in this case had a personal interest in the proceedings, nor a prior connection with either of the parties. We conclude that her participation in women’s marches does not constitute “evident partiality.”
The full text of the opinion is attached below.