Temporary Alternatives, Inc. D/B/A dmDickason Personnel Services v. Misti K. Jamrowski
511 S.W.3d 64
Tex. App.2014Background
- Appellant Temporary Alternatives, Inc. d/b/a dmDickason seeks interlocutory review of the trial court's denial of its motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration against Misti Jamrowski.
- The Arbitration Policy Agreement in the dmDickason Handbook requires disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration, with a clause allowing dmDickason to change the policy without advance notice to employees, except for claims already filed for arbitration.
- Jamrowski filed suit in district court against dmDickason and its client company; dmDickason moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied.
- The Handbook acknowledges it does not cover all policies in detail, and employee acknowledgment states the Handbook provisions may be changed at any time and that dmDickason may choose not to follow provisions in the Handbook.
- The Court analyzes whether the arbitration agreement is illusory due to dmDickason's potential unilateral alteration power and whether the savings clause adequately limits that power under Halliburton.
- The court ultimately holds the agreement is illusory and affirms the trial court's denial of arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration clause is illusory as a stand-alone document. | Jamrowski argues the clause stands alone and is not affected by Handbook changes. | dmDickason argues alteration powers exist, but savings clause may restrain them. | Issue 1: not outcome-determinative; court declines to decide on stand-alone status. |
| Whether the savings clause adequately restricts unilateral modification under Halliburton. | Jamrowski contends savings clause prevents retroactive changes that could void arbitration commitments. | dmDickason contends clause is sufficient to permit modification without retroactive effect. | Issue 2: savings clause inadequate; agreement illusory; arbitration not compelled. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002) (savings clause must restrain unilateral modification to avoid illusory promise)
- In re Datamark, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 614 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009) (prior notice critical; retroactive modifications render promise illusory)
- In re ReadyOne Industries, Inc., 400 S.W.3d 164 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2013) (assessing Halliburton savings clause factors; whether alteration power renders illusory)
- Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. v. Pena, 385 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2012) (savings clause with notice provisions can create a window to arbitrate)
- In re Champion Technologies, Inc., 222 S.W.3d 127 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2006) (notice provisions referenced in savings clause potential validity)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, 80 S.W.3d 611 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (notice provisions in savings clause prior to modification)
- In re Datamark, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 614 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009) (see above; repeated to emphasize prior-notice requirement)