L. Paul Dieffenbach v. INTERNATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED dba INTRACORP On Appeal From…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4085
________________
L. PAUL DIEFFENBACH,
Appellant
v.
INTERNATIONAL REHABILITATION
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
dba INTRACORP
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-07903)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 14, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: October 18, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, L. Paul Dieffenbach, filed this action against his former employer,
Intracorp, claiming that he was improperly denied severance benefits and that his wages

-- 1 of 3 --

2
were improperly garnished pursuant to a state tax lien. He later amended his complaint to
include claims of age discrimination and unlawful discharge to avoid pension vesting. On
December 23, 2002, the District Court granted Intracorp’s motion to compel arbitration,
holding that Dieffenbach was bound by the parties’ written agreement to arbitrate all
disputes arising out of his employment. In 2004, the parties entered into a written
Settlement Agreement and Release, calling for Intracorp to pay Dieffenbach $17,544.96.
Dieffenbach took the position that the Release did not include his ADEA claim or ERISA
discharge claim. An arbitrator granted Intracorp’s motion for enforcement of the
Agreement, holding that the Release covered all claims. Dieffenbach then returned to the
District Court and sought to quash the award, while Intracorp moved for enforcement.
On August 16, 2004, the District Court confirmed the arbitrator’s award in all respects
and dismissed the case. After the District Court denied Dieffenbach’s timely filed motion
for reconsideration, Dieffenbach timely filed this appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(D).
Dieffenbach raises a host of issues on appeal, but after a careful review of the
record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court’s judgment. Among other things,
Dieffenbach argues that the Arbitrator impermissibly “reversed” a prior ruling by the
District Court finding the waiver of his ADEA claims unenforceable. Appellant’s Br. at
16. The record is clear, however, that the District Court did not consider the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement or waiver of the ADEA claims until after the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
arbitration proceeding when it confirmed the award. Dieffenbach also contends that the
arbitrator’s award cannot stand because the arbitrator reached his decision without
holding a hearing. Appellant’s Br. at 24. As the District Court correctly observed,
however, the arbitrator decided the matter pursuant to the parties’ Settlement Agreement,
and the Settlement permitted the issues to be heard and decided on a summary basis
without a hearing. Moreover, the record fully supports a finding that Dieffenbach’s
execution of the arbitration agreement, as well as his execution of the Settlement
Agreement and Release, were knowingly and voluntarily given, and Dieffenbach presents
us with no credible or persuasive argument to the contrary. Cf. Wastak v. Lehigh Valley
Heath Network, 342 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2003).
We have considered Dieffenbach’s remaining arguments, but we find those
arguments without merit and in need of no separate discussion. We note that the
Appellee’s Brief fully and accurately sets forth the reasons why Dieffenbach’s various
contentions must be rejected. For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s
judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --