In October 2021, Officer Brandon Davis of the Washoe County School District Police in Nevada suffered serious injuries to his head, shoulders, elbows, and knees while breaking up a student fight at Reed High School. He filed a workers’ compensation claim and received benefits under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA). While receiving those payments, his union, the Washoe County School Police Officers Association, filed three grievances on his behalf, alleging that the District improperly deducted sick leave for the days Davis was ordered to stay home under light-duty restrictions, failed to reimburse mileage for travel to medical appointments, and engaged in retaliatory and discriminatory assignment practices.
Before the arbitration hearing, the District objected, arguing that the NIIA provided the “exclusive remedy” for workplace injuries and thus stripped the Arbitrator of jurisdiction over any related claims. On the threshold issue, the Arbitrator stated he was “not reviewing and not making any decisions under the Nevada state laws. He [was] only considering the various sections in the collective bargaining agreement and whether there has been any violation. Thus, clearly the matter is arbitrable.” On the merits, he found that the District violated the CBA by failing to provide temporary total disability benefits under Article 13.10.1, which prohibited deducting sick leave for such absences, and by refusing mileage reimbursement for travel to medical appointments, which constituted official business. He dismissed the retaliation and discrimination claims, finding insufficient evidence.
The Association moved in district court to confirm the award. The District moved to vacate it, arguing the Arbitrator exceeded his powers by ignoring the NIIA’s exclusive remedy provision, manifestly disregarded the law, and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court agreed, granting the motion to vacate.
The Court of Appeals reversed, applying a highly deferential standard of review. The Court emphasized that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award faces a “high hurdle” and must show by clear and convincing evidence a statutory or common-law ground for vacatur; mere error is insufficient. The Court addressed the district court’s two primary rationales.
First, the appellate court held the district court erred in finding the Arbitrator “manifestly disregarded” the NIIA. That standard requires a “conscious disregard” or “something approaching intentional misconduct,” where the arbitrator knowingly rejects directly applicable law. The Court found no such deliberate disregard in the record. The Arbitrator acknowledged the NIIA argument but concluded he was tasked with interpreting the CBA.
Second, the Court held the district court erred in concluding the Arbitrator exceeded his powers or lacked jurisdiction. The Court clarified that an arbitrator’s authority flows from the parties’ contract, not from judicial-style subject matter jurisdiction. The CBA provided a broad grievance procedure for “an alleged violation, misinterpretation, or inequitable application of a specific provision of this Agreement” and culminated in arbitration. Another provision explicitly authorized the Arbitrator to decide arbitrability and even to hear evidence before making that determination. The Arbitrator’s finding that the grievances — which alleged specific CBA violations — were arbitrable was therefore “rationally grounded in the agreement.”
Washoe County School Police Officers Ass’n v. Washoe County School Dist., 2025 WL 2810838 (Nev. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2025) (unpublished).