# John J. Glennon, Jr. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 15, 1996 · 83 F.3d 132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489128

## Case

- **Full name:** John J. GLENNON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 15, 1996
- **Citations:** 83 F.3d 132; 1996 WL 224000
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wellford
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Wellford, Moore
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489128

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding under a “manifest disregard of the law” standard that an arbitration award of punitive damages will not be overturned as excessive unless there is no evidence to support compensatory damages or the existence of intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless conduct
- stating that federal courts should when exercising jurisdiction over pendent state claims and in diversity cases apply the forum state’s choice of law provisions
- holding that statements on Form U-5 are not entitled to absolute privilege under Tennessee law
- noting that the “manifest disregard of the law” standard is very narrow and that a mere error in interpretation of application of the law is insufficient

## Opinion text

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
This case is unusual because Dean Witter, one of the principal members of NASD, which requires mandatory arbitration of employment disputes under the aegis of the Securities and Exchange Commission, contends that he is entitled to have this court review the $750,000 punitive damage award únder a due process standard. Dean Witter also asserts that the compensatory award of $728,500 to Glennon for defamation constituted a manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel which was not required to set out a factual or legal basis for its various determinations. It is our normal experience that the non-NASD party is the one challenging the actions of a NASD arbitration panel. 1
The district court made a thoughtful analysis of the number of issues in the dispute. The district judge confirmed the award and Glennon’s right to enforce it, concluding that Tennessee law should be applied under the circumstances. I agree with the majority that this was not an erroneous determination. I also agree that the making out and filing of the U-5 form, which was the basis of the defamation claim, was not subject to the *140 claim of absolute privilege asserted by Dean Witter. Dean Witter is entitled to claim only a qualified privilege in its statements in the Form U-5. 2
I write separately because I think it is a close question as to whether Glennon adequately proved, as is necessary under Tennessee law, his damages for defamation. No longer are defamation damages presumed under Tennessee law. Emerson v. Garner, 732 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987). Plaintiff is required to plead and prove actual injury and causation in Memphis Publishing Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn.1978). Since we cannot effectively review the amount of the award of compensatory damages awarded by arbitration, if any actual injury has been proven, I am precluded from anything but an expression of dictum that the panel awards of damages and fees were exceedingly generous for Glennon under the circumstances of this case.
Although I find the damages issue not to be free of doubt, I cannot say that there was no evidence to support the awards in this case. We are constrained to a narrow review under the “manifest disregard” standard, and the arbitrators’ decision was not “so patently contrary to established legal precedent” to set it aside. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Jaros, 70 F.3d 418, 422 (6th Cir.1995).
Accordingly, I concur in the panel decision.
. As pointed out by the district court: “[h]aving enthusiastically welcomed the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, the securities industry might be expected not to encourage retrial of a case in federal court" Rostad & Rostad Corp. v. Investment Management & Research, 923 F.2d 694 , 697 (9th Cir.1991).
. This is not a case where the employer is being held liable because it was wrong or mistaken in giving reasons for a discharge; it was held liable for deliberately and intentionally maligning Glen-non in the U-5.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489128. Public record. Not legal advice.