HOUSTON – A Texas appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to refer to arbitration a dispute between a woman who alleged her employer violated settlement terms when it targeted her with adverse employment actions, after it investigated her sexual assault claim, and the company itself.
On Aug. 29, Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas justices Terry Adams, Richard Hightower and Julie Countiss unanimously upheld the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas’s ruling, in Jane Doe’s action versus Occidental Petroleum Corp (Oxy).
Hightower wrote the Court’s opinion in this case.
“Doe was employed by Oxy in 2015, when she alleged that she was sexually assaulted by another Oxy employee. The employee was criminally indicted for the assault, and Doe sued Oxy, alleging that the employee had assaulted other female employees and that Oxy ‘operated a workplace that facilitated a sexual predator’s ability to systematically sexually abuse younger, female subordinates.’ Oxy investigated the allegations and terminated the man who assaulted Doe, but it denied any liability in connection with the assault,” Hightower said.
“Doe and Oxy eventually entered into a settlement agreement, executed in December 2015. Oxy agreed (1) to pay Doe $45,000 ‘to cover attorney’s fees and expenses related to this issue’; (2) ‘not to take any adverse employment action against [Doe] arising from the [assault and her subsequent lawsuit] or this Agreement’; and (3) to ‘reimburse [Doe] for any payments made, including co-payments and deductible payments, that are incurred in the next 24 months from the effective date of this Agreement’ for treatment arising from the assault ‘[t]o the extent any treatment is not covered by the [Oxy-sponsored] benefit plans.’ In exchange, Doe agreed to release all claims against Oxy.”
The settlement agreement further contained a mandatory forum selection clause that dictated any legal disputes related to it would exclusively be heard in a Harris County, Texas court.
Doe signed the settlement agreement and continued to work for Oxy. In 2016, Oxy made two grants of restricted stock units to Doe as part of its long-term incentive plan, one issued in February 2016 and a second in July 2016. The stock grants were accomplished via a “Notice of Grant of Restrict Stock Unit Incentive Award” document and attachments that set out the terms and conditions of the transaction. The award agreement provided that, by accepting the award, Doe agreed to be bound by the attached terms and conditions, which contained a provision that read that any disputes related to the award agreement would be handled only in arbitration.
Doe also signed the award agreement.
“Doe took a leave of absence and then ultimately resigned in 2016. She subsequently filed suit against Oxy in the trial court. She alleged that, after entering into the settlement agreement, she ‘continued to suffer from her severe physical injuries and mental disabilities,’ but Oxy ‘began to take adverse employment actions against her.’ She cited examples, stating that she was ‘ostracized at the workplace’; she ‘became the target of unfair criticisms from her supervisors,’ and ‘received negative workplace reviews for the first time’; she ‘did not receive appropriate and fair’ bonuses or salary increases; and was ‘subjected to derogatory statements,” Hightower stated.
“She alleged that she ‘received so much negativity, harassment, hostility and complaints in the workplace that she was forced to resign.’ She further alleged that she submitted medical expenses to Oxy between December 2015 and December 2017, but Oxy ‘failed to timely pay her medical expenses and failed to pay some of her medical expenses entirely.’ Thus, Doe alleged that Oxy breached the settlement agreement by failing to timely reimburse her medical expenses and by subjecting her to ‘various adverse employment actions.”
Oxy moved to compel arbitration under the arbitration provisions in the award agreements to arbitrate “any disputes arising out of or in way related to” Doe’s employment or termination of her employment. Oxy further cited the provision that “any controversy regarding whether a particular dispute is subject to arbitration under this [arbitration provision] shall be decided by the arbitrator.
The trial court compelled the case to arbitration, where the arbitrator issued a written decision determining that Doe’s claims against Oxy were subject to the arbitration provision in the award agreements – which the plaintiff moved to vacate, but this move was denied by the trial court.
This led Doe to appeal to the First District.
On appeal, Doe asserted that the trial court should have “enforced the parties’ mandatory forum selection clause and refused to refer this matter to arbitration.”
According to Hightower, “the trial court determined, and [the First District agrees], that Oxy met these requirements...the award agreements containing the arbitration provision at issue here were valid, enforceable contracts.”
“The question before the trial court, and before this Court, however, is not the enforceability of the settlement agreement’s forum selection clause but the question of whether Oxy established that Doe’s claims at issue fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement. As set out above, the award agreement contains a valid, enforceable and broad arbitration provision, including an express agreement to have issues of arbitrability determined by the arbitrator. Oxy and Doe executed two award agreements containing substantively identical arbitration provisions after they executed the settlement agreement,” Hightower said.
“Parties frequently enter into more than one agreement over the course of their dealings, and those agreements may contain conflicting provisions. Even in cases where multiple contracts exist between the parties, when a party moves for arbitration, the relevant inquiry remains whether the asserted claims fall within the scope of a valid arbitration provision. We conclude that the trial court did not err in compelling this case to arbitration. We therefore overrule Doe’s sole issue on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas case 01-23-00196-CV
270th District Court, Harris County, Texas case 2019-79468
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at: nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com