Delfingen US-Texas, LP v. Guadalupe Valenzuela
407 S.W.3d 791
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Delfingen designs wiring harnesses and plastic automotive components; Valenzuela, a non-English reader, worked as a temporary employee for about four months and became permanent on May 5, 2008.
- Valenzuela attended a May 7, 2008 new-employee orientation conducted entirely in Spanish; she signed several English documents, including the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Policy and Agreement, acknowledging she read and agreed to arbitration.
- Valenzuela alleges the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it was not explained to her in Spanish and she was rushed to sign, leading to a belief she was signing an attendance policy.
- Delfingen submitted a packet of English documents, including the arbitration agreement, and Guzman testified she explained policies in both English and Spanish and asked for questions, but Valenzuela claimed the arbitration agreement was not discussed or translated.
- A trial-hearing record showed Valenzuela testified she understood little English, Guzman may not have explained the arbitration agreement, and Delfingen did not translate the arbitration provision; the trial court denied arbitration enforcement, and the matter proceeded as an interlocutory appeal.
- Texas contract law applies to the arbitration agreement, and the FAA governs validity; the court ultimately held the arbitration clause procedurally unconscionable under the totality of circumstances and affirmed denial of the motion to compel arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable? | Valenzuela argues illiteracy and misrepresentation. | Delfingen argues illiteracy alone suffices no unconscionability. | Yes; procedural unconscionability supported; arbitration denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2006) (unconscionability standard for arbitration agreements)
- In re AdvancePCS Health L.P., 172 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. 2005) (burden-shifting framework; FAA preempts but state law governs validity)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (proper standard for determining enforceability of arbitration agreements under FAA)
- In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. 2008) (arbitration agreements generally enforceable; unconscionability defense)
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for waiver of arbitration right; law de novo for unconscionability)
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (legal questions on arbitration reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed for support)
- In re Big 8 Food Stores, Ltd., 166 S.W.3d 869 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2005) (illiteracy as a factor in contract enforcement; not by itself grounds for unconscionability)