law-arbitration-employment-contracts | arbitration-related decisions from Texas courts of appeals
ARBITRATION IN EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT - TEXAS CASELAW
In Re Polymerica, LLC, No. 08-1064 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus
granted)
IN RE POLYMERICA, LLC D/B/A GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC.; from El Paso County;
8th district (08-08-00070-CV, 271 SW3d 442, 11-25-08)
stay order of February 24, 2009 lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
ARBITRATION IN OCCUPATIONAL INJURY CASE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS
In Re Macy's Texas, Inc., No. 08-0584 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(per curiam)
IN RE MACY'S TEXAS, INC.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-08-00469-CV, ___ SW3d ___,
[per curiam opinion of the San Antonio Court of Appeals denying mandamus relief] 07-23-08)
stay order issued October 10, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Agreements to arbitrate disputes between employers and employees are
generally enforceable under Texas law; there is nothing per se
unconscionable about an agreement to arbitrate employment disputes and, in
fact, Texas law has historically favored agreements to resolve such disputes
by arbitration. See Advance PCS, 172 S.W.3d at 608; EZ Pawn Corp. v.
Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tex. 1996); Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin, 924 S.
W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. 1996).In re Poly-America, LP, 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. 2008)
(arbitration in employment context, FAA, retaliatory discharge, employment law, limitation of
remedies, unconscionability argument challenge sustained, offending provision stricken, but
remainder of arbitration agreement given effect)
We hold invalid, as substantively unconscionable and void, provisions of the parties’
contract that prohibit the award of punitive damages or reinstatement and thus inhibit
effective vindication of Luna’s retaliatory-discharge claim in an arbitral forum. We further
hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the arbitrator to determine
whether the fee-splitting agreement and discovery limitations — as applied in the course
of arbitration — are unconscionable. Because we find the invalid remedies-
limitation provisions severable from the agreement to arbitrate, which we
conclude is otherwise enforceable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling
arbitration. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.