Crow v. American Messaging Service, L.L.C.
4:19-cv-00600
| E.D. Tex. | Sep 17, 2020Background:
- Kennard Crow sued American Messaging Service, LLC alleging Title VII discrimination and state-law claims (IIED, breach of contract, fraud) after his termination.
- Parties had a severance agreement containing a release and a choice-of-law clause stating Ohio law governs "this agreement." Crow signed the agreement; the Magistrate found the signing knowing and voluntary.
- Defendant moved to dismiss and for summary judgment; the Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment based on the enforceable severance release and dismissing all claims.
- The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and conclusion that Crow knowingly waived his Title VII claim via the severance agreement, granted summary judgment, and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
- The Court corrected the Magistrate’s choice-of-law analysis for tort claims: Texas choice-of-law rules apply to torts (most significant relationship), and Texas law governs Crow’s tort claims, though the outcome under Texas matched the Magistrate’s recommendation under Ohio law.
- The Court denied as moot several pending motions (including motions to dismiss, stay discovery, strike, and for leave to amend) and ordered final judgment to follow.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the severance agreement validly released Crow’s Title VII claim | Crow contended the release was not a knowing/voluntary waiver of his Title VII rights | American Messaging argued Crow knowingly signed and waived all claims by executing the severance agreement | Release was knowing and voluntary; Title VII claim barred; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether court should reach Title VII merits given the release | Crow sought adjudication of his discrimination claim on the merits | Defendant said the release moots the merits inquiry | Court declined to decide Title VII merits as release renders claim moot |
| Choice of law for breach-of-contract claim | Crow implied Ohio law shouldn’t control; contract specified Ohio law for the agreement | American Messaging relied on the contract’s clause selecting Ohio law | Texas choice-of-law rules enforce contractual choice-of-law for contract claims; Ohio law governs breach claim per agreement |
| Choice of law for tort claims (IIED, fraud) | Crow argued Texas law applies to tort claims arising from events in Texas | Defendant had applied Ohio law but contract’s choice clause did not extend to torts | Texas most-significant-relationship test applies to torts; Texas law governs tort claims; but dismissal still appropriate under Texas law |
| Whether IIED and fraud claims survive under applicable law | Crow asserted torts were viable under Texas/Ohio law | American Messaging argued tort claims fail on the merits | Court dismissed IIED and fraud with prejudice; elements not satisfied under Texas (and Ohio) law |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Enron Corp. Secs., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig., 511 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (forum-state choice-of-law rules govern supplemental state-law claims)
- Rieder v. Woods, 603 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2020) (enforcement of contractual choice-of-law provisions)
- Stier v. Reading & Bates Corp., 992 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1999) (contractual choice-of-law clause generally does not govern tort claims unless intended)
- Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Conestoga Settlement Tr., 442 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (applying Restatement factors for choice-of-law in tort cases)
- Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meadows, 877 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. 1994) (elements of fraud under Texas law)
- Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2005) (IIED as a gap-filler tort; availability is limited)
- Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (discussing rarity of standalone IIED claims)