AUSTIN – A trial court abused its discretion by determining pre-arbitration discovery was warranted in a discrimination lawsuit, the Supreme Court of Texas opined on Friday.
The opinion stems from litigation brought by Maria Ordaz against Copart, Inc. In March 2015, Ordaz, a Christian woman of Arab descent, began working for Copart as a customer service representative.
Court records show Ordaz filed an internal complaint with the company claiming her office manager made derogatory comments about her religion and ethnicity.
Shortly thereafter, Ordaz alleges that she was asked to resign. When she refused, her employment was terminated.
Ordaz sued Copart, claiming discrimination and retaliation. In response, Copart answered and moved to compel arbitration.
Court records show Copart maintained Ordaz electronically signed an arbitration agreement when she began her employment.
In response to the motion to compel arbitration, Ordaz moved to compel pre-arbitration discovery, denying the existence on an enforceable arbitration agreement.
Court records show a trial court granted Ordaz’s motion, prompting Copart to appeal. After some back and forth, the case ended up in the Texas Supreme Court.
“In sum, Ordaz’s motion and affidavit demonstrate no colorable basis or reason to believe that the requested discovery would be material in establishing the agreement’s existence and enforceability,” the high court’s opinion states. “Ordaz thus failed to provide the trial court with a reasonable basis to conclude that it lacks sufficient information to determine whether her claims against Copart are arbitrable.
“Accordingly, we hold that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering pre-arbitration discovery.”
The high court ordered the trial court to vacate the discovery order and rule on Copart’s motion to compel arbitration.
Copart is represented in part by Michael Royal and Mark Flores, attorneys for the Dallas law firm of Littler Mendelson.
El Paso attorney John Mobbs represents Ordaz.
Case No. 19-1078