IHS Acquisition No. 131, Inc. D/B/A Horizon Healthcare Center at El Paso v. Martha Iturralde
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3232
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Iturralde filed a first amended petition against IHS Horizons, claiming age-based promotion denial and later demotion with pay cut in 2008.
- Plaintiff alleges the employer retaliated after her EEOC claim, leading to adverse employment actions.
- IHS moved to compel arbitration and attached a Mutual Arbitration Agreement signed by Iturralde on October 17, 2008.
- The Agreement identifies Employer as IHS Acquisition No. 174, but Iturralde was employed by IHS Acquisition No. 131, creating a misnomer.
- FAA applies; Texas law governs contract formation and the arbitration provisions, including gateway issues.
- The trial court denied arbitration; the court of appeals reversed, sustaining both issues and remanding for arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides gateway issues? | Iturralde argues court should decide enforceability/validity. | IHS argues arbitrator should decide gateway issues per delegation. | Gateway issues to be decided by arbitrator; contract delegates to arbitrator. |
| Does the misnomer defeat the arbitration agreement? | Iturralde contends no valid agreement exists due to misnomer. | IHS contends misnomer does not defeat arbitration; contract formed between Employer and Employee. | Misnomer does not defeat arbitration; arbitration agreement remains enforceable and subject to arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (gateway issues depend on what parties agreed about arbitrability)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (parties may agree to arbitrate arbitrability)
- In re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2006) (formation elements and consideration for arbitration)
- In re AdvancePCS Health L.P., 172 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. 2005) (mutual promises constitute consideration for arbitration)
- In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002) (mutuality and illusory promises in arbitration agreements)
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (two-step burden on arbitration enforcement)