Ophthalmic Consultants of Texas, P.A. v. Adolfo Morales
13-15-00278-CV
Tex. App.Jul 20, 2015Background
- Dr. Morales sues OCT for age discrimination and retaliation under Texas law in Cameron County.
- Morales signed a standalone Agreement to Arbitrate on Oct 20, 2009 agreeing to arbitrate employment disputes.
- The dispute is whether the Agreement is valid and enforceable and whether Morales’s claims fall within its scope.
- OCT moved to compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion after a May 20, 2015 hearing.
- Morales argues the Agreement is illusory or unenforceable and that the issue should be decided by the arbitrator.
- The appellate court must determine whether to compel arbitration and whether OCT waived its right to enforce the Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying arbitration and staying proceedings. | Morales— Morales argues the dispute is arbitrable under the Agreement. | Morales— OCT asserts the Agreement covers these claims and should be enforced. | Yes; court should compel arbitration if agreement valid and scope includes claims. |
| Whether the dispute about enforceability of the Agreement should be decided by the arbitrator or the court. | Morales— defenses to the whole agreement should go to arbitration. | OCT— defenses to validity go to arbitrator per Buckeye/Merrill Lynch. | Arbitrator; defenses to the whole agreement are for arbitration. |
| Whether the Agreement is illusory or unenforceable as a stand-alone arbitration provision. | Morales— the agreement is illusory because modification/notice rights are missing. | OCT— no modification right exists; the promise is non-illusory. | Not illusory; mutuality and consideration exist; enforceable. |
| Whether OCT waived its right to compel arbitration. | Morales— OCT waited to enforce after substantial judicial activity, implying waiver. | OCT did not substantially invoke the judicial process or cause prejudice. | No waiver; no substantial invocation or prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (general standard favoring arbitration; contract questions referred to arbitrator when applicable)
- Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006) (challenge to contract validity goes to arbitrator)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (arbitrability and scope important to resolve in favor of arbitration)
- In re Merrill Lynch Trust Co. FSB, 235 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2007) (Texas Supreme Court on defenses to arbitration agreements as a whole)
- In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1999) (arbitration enforceability and modification considerations)
- In re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (procedural principles for arbitrability under Texas law)
- In re 24R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. 2010) (illustrates scope and enforceability considerations in arbitration)
- In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2010) (arbitrability and scope in healthcare employment disputes)