Follow-up on Peterson v. Minerva: LIFT OUR VOICES Amicus Brief

by Dennis Crouch

In early January 2025, I wrote about Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, No. 24-712, a case involving a former Minerva sales director (Dan Peterson) seeking Supreme Court review of an arbitration award that went against his whistleblower claims. See Dennis Crouch, Patents as Product Liability Admissions: A Cert Petition Highlights Novel Use of Patent Filings in Whistleblower Case, Patently-O (Jan. 4, 2025).  As I explained in that post, Peterson's argument for review relies on Minerva's own patent filings as evidence that the company knew about safety issues with its endometrial ablation device —and that it fraudulently provided contradictory testimony during the arbitration proceedings.

The case has now drawn additional attention through an amicus brief filed by Lift Our Voices (LOV), filed by my University of Missouri Law School colleague Professor Michael Tripp.  LOV, led by former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, advocates for workplace safety and equity -- and has particularly focused on how forced arbitration and non-disclosure agreements lead to a continuation of sexual harassment in the workforce. The brief presents the case as emblematic of broader concerns about the use of forced arbitration and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to shield corporate misconduct from public scrutiny.

Federal Appellate Judge: "I have No Power": LOV's brief emphasizes how the Tenth Circuit's extreme deference to arbitrators has effectively nullified any meaningful judicial review. The brief directly quotes the circuit court's striking admissions of powerlessness, including statements that federal courts "do not have discretion," "do not have power," and "cannot set aside an arbitration award based on legal error."  This language, LOV argues, represents a concerning abdication of Article III judicial authority that Congress never intended when enacting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) -- concluding that the Arbitrator was faced with a factual dispute about safety and decided that the device had not yet been proven unsafe.

The case provides stark language about the extremely limited scope of judicial review over arbitration awards. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit emphasizes in Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., No. 24-3003 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024): "the standard of review of arbitral awards 'is among the narrowest known to the law.'" The court goes on to state directly that "federal courts do not have power to review an arbitrator's factual findings." And when it comes to legal errors, the court explains that it "cannot set aside an arbitration award based on legal error unless it amounts to 'a manifest disregard of the law, defined as willful inattentiveness to the governing law.'"