“No Claim, No Award” – Eleventh Circuit Clarifies that Arbitrators Exceed Their Powers by Granting Relief on Unsubmitted Claims
in Nalco Company LLC v. Laurence Bonday

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in its published decision Nalco Company LLC v. Laurence Bonday, No. 22-13546 (11th Cir. 2025), confronted a recurring problem in modern arbitration: What happens when an arbitrator fashions relief on a theory never pleaded by the claimant? The court held—squarely and unequivocally—that doing so exceeds the arbitrator’s powers under section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and any resulting award must be vacated.

While district courts and parties often spar over who decides “arbitrability,” the Eleventh Circuit deliberately sidestepped that broader issue and rested its affirmance on a narrow but powerful ground: an arbitrator binds the parties only on issues they actually submitted. Failure to respect that limitation warrants vacatur, regardless of whether the claim might otherwise have been within the contractual scope of arbitration.

Parties

• Nalco Company LLC – Delaware-based employer; part of Ecolab group.
• Laurence Bonday – Former employee terminated (effectively) in 2019; commenced AAA arbitration pro se seeking severance benefits.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Middle District of Florida’s order vacating an AAA arbitration award that had granted Bonday more than $129,000. The panel (Branch, Luck & Tjoflat, JJ.; per curiam, with Tjoflat, J. dissenting) focused on a single dispositive point:

The court expressly declined to reach Nalco’s alternative ground—that the arbitrator improperly decided questions of arbitrability that the contract reserved for courts—stating it had “doubts” but no need to decide.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

(a) Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9–11

Section 10(a)(4) allows a federal court to vacate an award where “the arbitrators exceeded their powers.” The decision reinforces that § 10(a)(4) is triggered not only by who decided an issue (e.g., arbitrability) but also by what the arbitrator decided (claims outside the submission).

(b) Butterkrust Bakeries v. BCTW Local 361, 726 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1984)

Cited for the axiom that arbitrators bind parties only on issues the parties agreed to submit.

(c) Davis v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 59 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1995)

Key analogue: panel in Davis improperly decided attorneys’ fees never requested. The court used Davis as near-direct precedent that deciding unsubmitted matters exceeds arbitral authority.

(d) Delegation Cases Left Unresolved

• Terminix Int’l Co. v. Palmer Ranch, 432 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2005)
• Attix v. Carrington Mortgage, 35 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2022)

The panel signaled doubt about the district court’s view that arbitrability had to be decided by a court under the contract, suggesting these delegation precedents might have compelled a different conclusion if necessary.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of Submission.
   • Bonday’s arbitration demand alleged a single breach of severance plan.
   • No mention of ERISA § 510, discrimination, or equitable damages.
   • Therefore, those theories were not part of the submission.
2. Excess of Powers.
   • By sua sponte identifying a “possible” ERISA claim, the arbitrator ruled on an issue never presented.
   • Under long-standing Eleventh Circuit doctrine (Davis), that action exceeds arbitral authority.
3. Standard of Review.
   • Question of law reviewed de novo; factual findings for clear error. No factual dispute: record demonstrated absence of ERISA claim in demand.
4. Pro Se Leniency Rejected.
   • Although courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, leniency does not permit rewriting claims. The arbitrator crossed that line.

3. Impact of the Decision

• Re-empowers Courts under § 10(a)(4). Arbitrators have wide latitude, but this decision underscores a firm back-stop: awards on unpleaded theories risk vacatur.
• Practical Guidance for Arbitrators. When facing vaguely drafted demands—especially from pro se claimants—arbitrators must invite formal amendment (AAA Rule 5) rather than unilaterally add claims.
• Implications for Delegation Clauses. Although dicta, the panel’s “doubts” about the district court’s arbitrability ruling telegraph that the Eleventh Circuit continues to apply the mainstream rule that incorporation of AAA rules demonstrates clear delegation. Parties should draft carve-outs precisely.
• Employer–Employee Plans. ERISA § 510 claims are now squarely within FAA jurisprudence: they must be pleaded expressly or via amended demand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Arbitrability vs. Submission

Arbitrability asks whether a dispute is for arbitration at all. Submission asks which issues the parties put before the arbitrator once arbitration is underway. An issue can be arbitrable in principle but still not actually submitted.

2. Section 10(a)(4) “Exceeded Powers”

This ground for vacatur is narrow. It is not enough that the arbitrator got the law wrong; the arbitrator must decide something outside the parties’ assignment. Granting relief on an unpled claim satisfies that test.

3. Pro Se “Liberal Construction”

Courts (and arbitrators) give leeway to self-represented parties. However, leniency stops short of inventing new causes of action; it merely interprets existing allegations generously.

4. Delegation Clauses

Parties can agree that the arbitrator, not a court, decides gateway questions of arbitrability. Incorporating institutional rules (e.g., AAA Rule 6) usually counts as a “clear and unmistakable” delegation.

Conclusion

Nalco Company LLC v. Bonday sets a bright-line rule within the Eleventh Circuit: an arbitrator who crafts and awards relief on a claim never submitted—no matter how sympathetic the claimant or how sensible the theory—acts beyond her contractual mandate. The decision reinforces party autonomy, promotes procedural clarity, and warns arbitrators to confine their authority to the four-corners of the submission (or to insist on formal amendment). Future litigants should draft, amend, and police arbitration demands carefully; otherwise, even a favorable award may not survive judicial review.