Kevin Lee Biglow, a former employee of Dell Technologies, filed a pro se lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Before the lawsuit, Biglow had signed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (MAA) as a condition for receiving Long-Term Incentive grants. Dell moved to compel arbitration based on this agreement. The district court granted the motion, rejecting Biglow's arguments that he signed under duress or that the agreement was unconscionable. Biglow proceeded to arbitration, where an arbitrator granted Dell's motion for summary disposition, dismissing Biglow's claims on legal grounds including untimeliness. Biglow then filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award in district court, which was denied. Biglow appealed the district court's orders to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Regarding the order compelling arbitration, the court found that Biglow waived several arguments by failing to adequately brief them or preserve them in the district court. Specifically, the court held that Biglow's argument regarding a specific clause in the MAA was inadequately presented, and his argument that the district court failed to inquire into his voluntary agreement to arbitrate Title VII claims was waived because he did not raise it below. The court also rejected the claim that the district court improperly delegated arbitrability questions, noting the district court had ruled on the issue itself. Regarding the motion to vacate, the court applied the narrow standards of the Federal Arbitration Act. Biglow alleged arbitrator misconduct, lack of due process, and manifest disregard of the law. The court found no evidence of fraud, corruption, or fundamental unfairness in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator had the authority to dismiss claims on legal grounds without a hearing or extensive discovery. The court also rejected the claim that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law regarding the statute of limitations, noting that the arbitrator applied the correct 90-day period following the EEOC right-to-sue letter. Finally, the court addressed Biglow's allegations of fabricated case citations in his appellate filings. The court identified multiple instances where Biglow cited non-existent cases or misattributed holdings, concluding these were likely the result of 'AI hallucinations' from generative artificial intelligence tools. The court emphasized that litigants are responsible for verifying the accuracy of legal authority and warned that such fabrications waste judicial resources.
The decision affirms the enforceability of employment arbitration agreements covering Title VII claims when signed by employees. It reinforces the narrow scope of judicial review for arbitration awards, making it difficult to vacate an award based on procedural disagreements or alleged legal errors by the arbitrator. Additionally, the ruling serves as a significant warning to pro se litigants and counsel regarding the use of generative AI, establishing that fabricating legal citations can lead to sanctions or dismissal of appeals.