Pоlymerica, I- L.C. d/b/a Globa! Enh prises, Inc. (“Gif' al”) seeks a writ of nr u-damus ordering he trial court to gran! ⅛ motion to comp-'-l arbitration. Global, -in *75 El Paso-based manufacturer of plastics, hired Angelica Soltero in 1998. In 2002, Globаl contracted with dm Dickason Staff Leasing Company (“Dickason”) to manage Global’s human resources department. Soltero signed a Dispute Resolution Plan, which “applies] to any disputes betweеn dm Dickason/Global Enterprises and any applicant for employment, employee or former employee, including legal claims such as discrimination, wrongful discharge or harassment.” The Plan includes a four-step process for resolving disputes, the fourth of which requires binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Plan notes that it is “a condition of employment and of continued employment” and that “employment or continued employment after the effective date of this Plan constitutes consent by the Employee to be bound by this Plan.”
Subsequently, Global distributed an employee handbook and requirеd Soltero and all other employees to acknowledge its receipt. The acknowledgment recites that the handbook “takes precedence over, su-percedes, and revоkes any previous memo, bulletin, policy or procedure issued prior to [July 6, 2003], by Global Enterprises on any subject discussed in the Handbook.” The handbook includes a section on arbitration, which provides, in рertinent part:
All disputes between you and dm Dicka-son/Global shall be resolved exclusively through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. All employees are required to sign a Dispute Resolution Plan Agreement, as a condition оf employment, during their new employee orientation on the first day of employment. dm Dickason/Global’s Dispute Resolution Plan and Arbitration Agreement is intended to provide a method for solving problems thаt is fair, prompt and effective.
[[Image here]]
Your decision to accept employment with Global, or to continue your current employment after the effective date of the Dispute Resolution Plan, will mеan that you have agreed to, and are bound by the Plan. All disputes between you and dm Dickason, and/or you and Global shall be resolved exclusively through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, the American Arbitration Association’s National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes, and dm Dicka-son’s dispute resolution plan that is given to all employees during their initial employment orientation with dm Dicka-son.
On Decembеr 31, 2005, Global ended its operating agreement with Dickason and resumed full management of its human resources department. Five days later, Global terminated Soltero.
Soltero sued Global under chaptеr 21 of the Texas Labor Code alleging wrongful termination based on her national origin as well as retaliation for reporting alleged sexual harassment. The trial court denied Global’s motion to compel arbitration. Global sought mandamus relief, which the court of appeals granted in part.
Soltero concedes that she signed the Dispute Resolution Plan and the 2003 Handbook, but she argues that the Handbook’s statement revoking prior versions nullifies the Dispute Resolution Plan. That Handbook provision, however, does not cоver contracts like the Plan’s arbitration agreement. We also note that the Handbook and the Dispute Resolution Plan were intended to work in tandem. 227 S.W.Sd at 448 (“We fail to see how the handbook nullifies the аrbitration agreements; rather, it appears to reference them.”);
see also J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster,
Soltero also asserts that the Dispute Resolution Plan is illusory because the 2003 Handbook could be modified at any time.
See id.
at 230 n. 2 (noting that “most courts ... have held that, if a party retains the unilateral, unrestricted right to terminate the arbitration agreement, it is illusory”). But the Dispute Resolution Plan has its own termination provision, which requires notice to employees and applies prоspectively only. Because Global cannot “avoid its promise to arbitrate by amending the provision or terminating it altogether,”
In re Halliburton Co.,
Next, Soltero contends that because only Dickason, not Global, was a party to the Dispute Resolution Plan, Global may not enforce the Plan’s terms. Global counters that even though it did not sign the Plan, it can enforce Dickason’s аgreement with Soltero under the equitable theory of direct-benefits estoppel. We need not address direct-benefits estoppel, however, because both Global and Soltero were parties to the Plan. The Plan notes that it “will apply to any disputes between
dm
Dickason/Global Enterprises and any applicant for employment, employee or former employee.” It also defines “covered dispute” as including any claim, demand, or controversy “between Employee and
dm
Dickason and/or Global Enterprises.” Although the Plan is signed only by Soltero and Dickason, we have nevеr held that the employer must sign the arbitration agreement before it may insist on arbitrating a dispute with its employee. “[N]either the FAA nor Texas law requires that arbitration clauses be signed, so long as they are writtеn and agreed to by the parties.”
In re AdvancePCS Health, L.P.,
The court of appeals hеld that Global could not enforce the arbitration agreements “for those claims arising from the alleged wrongful termination occurring after the operating agreement between Global and Dickason ended.”
The court of appeals also noted that Global’s former human resources mаnager, Valerie Scott, “was unaware of any arbitration agreement after the termination of Global’s relationship with Dicka-son,” and “[s]he agreed that from January 2006 until July 2007, when Global created a new arbitration agreement, there was no arbitration agreement in effect.”
Soltero’s promise to arbitrate includes her claims against Global. Mandamus relief is appropriate when a party is forced to trial despite an enforсeable agreement to arbitrate.
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc.,