Parviz-Khyavi, Maryam v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. & Aetna Life Insurance Co., 395 S.W.3d 376

Parviz-Khyavi was hired by Alcon as a senior scientist per an August 27, 2007 offer letter
The offer letter stated compensation/benefits and acknowledged possible modifications; STD benefits not mentioned
An STD Program Guideline booklet, administered by Aetna, accompanied the offer but contained express disclaimers limiting contractual rights
Parviz-Khyavi later claimed a unilateral contract formed when she performed due to the offer plus guideline
Aetna initially approved STD benefits for February–April 2009; a later claim was denied as not supported by medical evidence
The trial court granted summary judgment for Alcon/Aetna; Parviz-Khyavi appealed seeking to enforce STD benefits and rule on related DTPA claim that was later nonsuited

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a unilateral contract for STD benefits was formed	Parviz-Khyavi argues offer + guideline formed a binding contract upon performance	Alcon/Aetna argue no promise capable of acceptance existed; disclaimer undermines contract	No unilateral contract formed; neither document alone nor together created a promise
Whether Parviz-Khyavi was a third-party beneficiary of Aetna’s contract	She asserts third-party beneficiary status to Aetna's administration pact	Defense relies on lack of enforceable contract to confer beneficiary rights	Issue not reached; dependent on contract formation ruling
Whether the DTPA claim against Aetna survives	DTPA claim should proceed despite summary judgment on other claims	DTPA claim was nonsuited and lacks ongoing viability	DTPA issue deemed moot; affirmed take-nothing on remaining matters

City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011) (unilateral contract requires a promise capable of acceptance by performance)
Vanegas v. American Energy Services, 302 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2009) (ill-defined promises vs. concrete consideration determine enforceability)
Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998) (RESTATEMENT concept of manifestation of intention to form a contract)
Ft. Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2000) (multiple documents can form a single written contract when appropriate)
Gamble v. Gregg County, 932 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1996) (employee handbook provisions require clear language to create contractual rights)
Drake v. Wilson N. Jones Med Ctr., 259 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008) (acknowledgment that non-contractual manuals do not create rights)