Texas Supreme Court Case Events Tables

RECENT NOTEWORTHY OPINION

Sovereign Immunity Decisions ---> Texas Supreme Court's Immunity Rulings

Grandparents' RIghts to their Grandchildren

In re Mays-Hooper (Tex. 2006)
[grandparent access to children, mandamus proceeding]
04-1040 IN RE KAREN MAYS-HOOPER; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02 04 00321 CV, ___ SW3d ___,
10 15 04)
as reinstated stay order issued November 19, 2004, 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 (Justice Willett not sitting) (“Without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c), we
conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the trial court to vacate its order of September 21, 2004
granting grandparent possession.“)

Arbitration: Employer Policy Held Enforceable

04-1132 I n R e Dillard Department Stores, Inc. (Tex. March 2, 2006)
From El Paso County; 8th district (08 -04 -00262 -CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 11-24-04). 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

In this original proceeding, relator Dillard Department Stores, Inc. seeks to compel arbitration of a retaliatory
discharge claim filed by its former employee. The trial court denied Dillard’s motion to compel, and the court
of appeals rejected Dillard’s petition for writ of mandamus. 153 S.W.3d 145. Because the trial court clearly
abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration, we conditionally grant Dillard’s petition for
writ of mandamus.

Delia Garcia worked as a sales associate at Dillard’s Sunland Park store in El Paso. In August 2000, Dillard
adopted an arbitration policy covering most employment disputes, including retaliatory discharge. In 2002,
Garcia was fired six months after requesting workers’ compensation benefits for work-related injuries. Garcia
filed the underlying suit for retaliatory discharge, and Dillard moved to compel arbitration. In response,
Garcia alleged that she never agreed to the arbitration policy, and even if she had, the agreement would be
unenforceable because Dillard retained the right to modify the policy at any time, rendering its promise to
arbitrate illusory.

The trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying Dillard’’s motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly,
without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and order the trial court to
vacate its order denying Dillard’’s motion to compel arbitration, and to enter a new order compelling
arbitration of Garcia’’s claims. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c)

In re Dallas Peterbilt (Tex. June 16, 2006)
[Employer entitled to enforce arbitration]
05-0706 IN RE DALLAS PETERBILT, LTD, L.L.P.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05 05 01034 CV, ___
SW3d ___, 08 19 05) supplemented
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
(“In this original proceeding, relator Dallas Peterbilt, Ltd., L.L.P. seeks to compel arbitration of claims filed by
its former employee, William Harris. The trial court denied Peterbilt’s motion to stay proceedings and to
compel arbitration, and the court of appeals summarily denied mandamus relief. __ S.W.3d __, 2005 Tex.
App. LEXIS 6768. Because the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement that covers Harris’s
claims, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Peterbilt’s motion to compel
arbitration. We conditionally grant mandamus relief. “ . . . “An employer may enforce an arbitration
agreement entered into during an at-will employment relationship if the employee received notice of the
employer’s arbitration policy and accepted it. In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., __ S.W.3d __,__, 2006 Tex.
LEXIS 196, at *2 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (citing In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tex. 2002)). In
granting mandamus relief in Halliburton, we stressed the importance of notice and emphasized that the
employee there received a one-page summary of the agreement to arbitrate. 80 S.W.3d at 568–69; see also
Hathaway v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 711 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1986) (holding that notice is provided if the
employee has knowledge of the employment terms). Harris argues that the Summary is immaterial and that
only the underlying agreement itself, which he says he never received, can provide notice. We disagree.
When determining whether an employee received notice of a binding arbitration agreement, our cases do
not confine that “notice analysis” to the underlying agreement, but to all communications between the
employer and employee. See In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d at 569 (holding that a notice and summary
given to the employee was unequivocal notice); Hathaway, 711 S.W.2d at 229 (holding that contradicting
written and oral communications did not constitute conclusive proof of unequivocal notice)”)

Arbitration: Mobile Home Owners Claims Against Seller, Manufacturer

In re Plam Harbor Homes, Inc. (Tex. June 9, 2006)
[home purchasers must arbitrate claim against manufacturer even though not a party to contract, but third-
party beneficiary]
04-0490 IN RE PALM HARBOR HOMES, INC. AND PALM HARBOR HOMES I, L.P. D/B/A PALM HARBOR
VILLAGE; from Brazoria County; 1st district (01 02 00370 CV, 129 SW3d 636, 12 31 03) stay order issued
November 19, 2004, lifted
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion