French v. U.S. Center for Safesport

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2026
• Docket: 25-1075
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 3, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LINDA FRENCH, an individual,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 25-1075 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-02138-GPG-KAS) U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT, a (D. Colo.) Colorado non-profit corporation,

Respondent - Appellee.

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges, and SHELBY, District Judge. ** ________________________________________

This appeal arises out of an athletic body’s suspension of its former

president for failing to report allegations of sexual abuse, firing an

* Oral argument would not materially help us decide this appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

** The Honorable Robert J. Shelby, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 2

employee to retaliate for reporting the abuse, and neglecting to redact

private information. The suspension was reviewable through arbitration.

See 36 U.S.C. § 220541(c)(1).

Under the athletic body’s rules, the arbitrator needed to give

“appropriate weight” to an investigative report. Appellant’s App’x vol. 7,

at 1066 (Rule 26(b), SafeSport Code for the Olympic & Paralympic

Movement). The arbitrator complied, but the former president argues that

the arbitrator improperly considered the report. We disagree.

1. An athletic body suspends its president.

The athletic body was the United States Center for SafeSport, which

is a statutory organization that investigates allegations of misconduct by

participants in U.S. Olympic and Paralympic events. 36 U.S.C.

§ 220541(a)(1)(B). The Center ’s president was Ms. Linda French. Under

the Center ’s rules, Ms. French

• needed to promptly report allegations of sexual abuse against coaches and redact identifying information when complying with subpoenas and

• could not retaliate against employees for reporting sexual abuse.

The Center concluded that Ms. French had violated these rules and

suspended her for five years, with a two-year probationary period to

follow. Ms. French could challenge the suspension through arbitration, and

she exercised that right.

2 Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 3

The applicable rules required the Center to compile an investigative

report and to submit it to the arbitrator. The Center complied, and

Ms. French testified about her disagreements with the report. With this

testimony and the investigative report, the arbitrator upheld the

suspension, finding that the Center hadn’t erred in finding that the

president

• failed to report allegations of sexual abuse,

• fired an employee to retaliate for reporting the abuse, and

• failed to redact information provided to Congress.

The district court confirmed the arbitrator ’s award, and Ms. French

appeals.

2. Ms. French hasn’t shown misconduct or a failure to conduct a fair hearing.

In assessing the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award,

we conduct de novo review of legal questions and apply the clear-error

standard to factual findings. THI of New Mexico at Vida Encantada, LLC v.

Lovato, 864 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th Cir. 2017). But we don’t consider the

merits of the arbitrator ’s decision, including “asserted errors in

determining the credibility of witnesses [and] the weight to be given their

testimony.” Sterling Colo. Beef Co. v. United Food and Commercial

Workers, Local Union No. 7, 767 F.3d 718, 720 (10th Cir. 1985) (quoting

Amalgamated Butcher Workmen v. Capitol Packing Co., 413 F.2d 668, 672

3 Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 4

(10th Cir. 1969)). We instead consider only whether the arbitrator

committed prejudicial misconduct or failed to provide a fundamentally fair

hearing. See ARW Expl. Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1462–63 (10th Cir.

1995) (narrow standard of review); 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) (prejudicial

misconduct); Bowles Fin. Group, Inc. v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 22

F.3d 1010, 1012–14 (10th Cir. 1994) (fundamentally fair hearing). “[A]

fundamentally fair hearing requires only notice, opportunity to be heard

and to present relevant and material evidence and argument before the

decision makers, and that the decisionmakers are not infected with bias.”

Bowles, 22 F.3d at 1013.

Ms. French claims misconduct and a lack of fundamental fairness

because the arbitrator relied on the Center ’s investigative report. But the

Center ’s rules required the arbitrator to give “appropriate weight” to that

report. Appellant’s App’x vol. 7, at 1066 (Rule 26(b), SafeSport Code for

the Olympic & Paralympic Movement).

Despite these rules, Ms. French complains that the report constituted

hearsay. But the Center ’s rules permitted consideration of hearsay. Id. at

1066 (Rule 26(a), SafeSport Code for the Olympic & Paralympic

Movement). Under these rules, the arbitrator could consider the

investigative report even if it constituted hearsay. The Center ’s rules thus

allowed the arbitrator to consider the investigative report.

4 Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 5

Ms. French points out that she testified on her own behalf. But her

testimony wasn’t recorded or transcribed, 1 so we have no way to compare

her testimony with the Center ’s investigative report. And even if we could

compare Ms. French’s testimony to statements in the investigative report,

we couldn’t disturb the arbitrator ’s decision to rely on the report instead of

Ms. French’s testimony. See Sterling Colo. Beef Co. v. United Food and

Commercial Workers, Local Union No. 7, 767 F.3d 718, 720 (10th Cir.

1985).

Finally, Ms. French contends that the arbitrator deprived her of a fair

hearing by shifting the burden of proof to her. We disagree. The arbitrator

• observed that the Center needed to “prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence” and

• applied that standard.

Appellant’s App’x vol. 2, at 55, 55–58. By applying this standard, the

arbitrator didn’t shift the burden of proof. So we reject Ms. French’s

contention.

3. Ms. French hasn’t shown an error in district court.

Ms. French challenges not only the arbitrator ’s decision but also the

district court’s decision to grant judgment based on the arbitration. This

1 Ms. French had the option to have the arbitration recorded. Appellant’s App’x vol. 7, at 1069 (Rule 28(g)(ii), SafeSport Code for the Olympic & Paralympic Movement). But Ms. French didn’t ask the arbitrator to record the arbitration or to allow transcription. 5 Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 6

challenge involves out-of-court statements by a former Center employee,

Mr. Alistair Casey. Mr. Casey’s out-of-court statements appeared in the

investigative report, and the arbitrator relied on many of these statements.

Ms. French argued in district court that the arbitrator shouldn’t have

relied on these statements because she had no chance to cross-examine Mr.

Casey. The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that Ms. French

had apparently declined to subpoena Mr. Casey, thinking that he would

testify for the Center. Ms. French argues that this reasoning is incorrect

because she didn’t want Mr. Casey to testify.

This argument is self-defeating: If Ms. French didn’t want Mr. Casey

to testify, the inability to obtain a subpoena wouldn’t matter. Without

either side wanting Mr. Casey to testify, the arbitrator would need to

decide the case based on the investigative report and Ms. French’s

testimony. So the district court’s reasoning couldn’t have tainted the

ruling.

Ms. French also faults the district court for concluding that

• she needed to compel Mr. Casey to testify and

• she could subpoena him.

But Ms. French mischaracterizes the district court’s reasoning. The court

didn’t find that Ms. French had to present testimony or that she could

subpoena Mr. Casey. Instead, the court just observed that Ms. French

hadn’t offered Mr. Casey’s testimony. That observation was accurate— 6 Appellate Case: 25-1075 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 7

Ms. French didn’t offer Mr. Casey’s testimony. This observation didn’t

render the arbitration fundamentally unfair.

Finally, Ms. French argues that the district court didn’t require the

Center to prove a violation of the Center ’s rules. We disagree. The court

deferred to “the arbitrator ’s credibility determinations, his weighing of the

evidence, and his view of the facts.” Appellant’s App’x vol. 9, at 1210.

And the arbitrator had found that the Center proved its allegations. Id. vol.

1, at 55–58. So the district court, like the arbitrator, understood that the

Center had the burden of proof and didn’t err in applying that burden.

** *

The arbitrator didn’t err in considering the investigative report or Mr.

Casey’s statements. So we affirm the district court’s confirmation of the

arbitration award.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge