AOF Services, LLC v. Ronald Santorsola, 13-14-00641-CV

Santorsola was hired by AOF Services, LLC on June 13, 2013 and, as a condition of employment, signed AOF’s Dispute Resolution Policy requiring employment-related disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration under the FAA.
After about 2.5 months, Santorsola filed suit alleging wrongful termination under Tex. Labor Code §451 following an alleged work-related injury; AOF moved to compel arbitration and abate the suit.
AOF submitted an affidavit and the Dispute Resolution Policy in support of its Motion to Compel; Santorsola opposed, submitting affidavits alleging prohibitive arbitration costs and claiming the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.
At a May 9, 2014 hearing the trial court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable and unenforceable and on October 20, 2014 entered an order denying AOF’s Motion to Compel arbitration.
AOF appeals the interlocutory denial, arguing the trial court erred because (1) the agreement is bilateral and not one-sided, (2) the discovery limits are permissible, and (3) the fee‑splitting terms do not show a likely prohibition on pursuing statutory rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Santorsola)	Defendant's Argument (AOF)	Held (trial court)
Whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable	Agreement is substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable	Agreement is valid, mutual, and enforceable; burden on plaintiff to prove unconscionability	Trial court found agreement unconscionable and denied motion to compel
Whether the agreement is one‑sided in favor of employer	Employer’s claims supposedly excluded; agreement favors AOF	Text is mutual: covers any dispute relating to employment for either party	Trial court concluded agreement was unfair (specific basis not memorialized)
Whether discovery limits render arbitration unconscionable	Limited discovery (15 interrogatories, 25 RFPs) unreasonably restricts plaintiff	Limited discovery is an inherent, permissible feature of arbitration; bilateral limits	Trial court deemed agreement unconscionable (discovery limitation part of plaintiff’s challenge)
Whether fee‑splitting/advance costs make arbitration prohibitively expensive	Fee allocation (employee pays portion) will likely exceed $5,000 and deter plaintiff from proceeding	Fee‑splitting is not per se unconscionable; plaintiff offered no competent evidence of likely costs or inability to pay; AOF pays 80% and arbitrator may award fees to prevailing party	Trial court treated cost concerns as part of unconscionability finding and denied compulsion

In re Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App.) (burden to show arbitration agreement exists)
Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.) (standards re: compelling arbitration)
In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex.) (employer may condition at‑will employment on arbitration)
In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex.) (presumption favoring arbitration; resisting party must prove defenses)
In re Poly‑America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex.) (fee‑splitting challenges require evidence of likely prohibitive costs)
Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC v. McCray, 416 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App.) (discovery limits and fee allocation issues in employment arbitration)
In re Fleetwood Homes of Tex., L.P., 257 S.W.3d 692 (Tex.) (arbitration’s streamlined discovery is permissible)
In re Weeks Marine, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.) (party challenging arbitration must show likelihood of incurring prohibitive costs)
Green Tree Fin. Corp.‑Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (speculative risk of prohibitive costs insufficient to invalidate arbitration)