McGehee v. Bowman
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3048
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Settlement Agreement (Oct. 15, 2008) released Bowman from pre-existing claims against listed McGehee entities and affiliates; ADR provision in section 21 governs disputes arising under or related to the Settlement Agreement; Bowman later sued for breach of an oral employment contract after post-settlement employment; Appellants sought mediation/arbitration under the ADR provision and stayed proceedings; trial court denied arbitration and this interlocutory appeal followed; the dispute concerns whether the ADR clause covers the post-settlement breach claim and who may enforce arbitration against non-signatories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides arbitrability—court or arbitrator—under the ADR provision? | McGehee argues arbitrator decides scope of arbitration. | Bowman argues court decides arbitrability. | Arbitrator has authority to determine arbitrability; trial court erred. |
| Whether non-signatories can compel arbitration under the Settlement Agreement. | McGehee's position focuses on signatories only. | Bowman argues non-signatories lack rights under the ADR provision. | Non-signatories cannot compel arbitration here; no intent shown to bind them. |
| Whether post-settlement oral employment dispute falls within ADR scope. | Dispute arises between McGehee and Bowman, within ADR scope. | Dispute relates to post-settlement conduct not covered by pre-existing releases. | Arbitrator scope applies to arbitrability of the dispute; issue remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (gateway issue; arbitrability governed by court unless clearly delegated to arbitrator)
- Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architecture Inc., 312 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (arbitrability includes whether agreement removes scope from court to arbitrator)
- In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (gateway issue; determine if agreement covers scope of arbitration)
- P. McGregor Enters., Inc. v. Denman Bldg. Prods., Ltd., 279 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007) (two aspects of substantive arbitrability; scope and agreement to arbitrate)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (clear and unmistakable intention to arbitrate arbitrability must be shown)