Castaneda v. Volt Mgmt. Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | EP-19-CV-00338-FM |
| Parties | MARIA G. CASTANEDA, Plaintiff, v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS AMERICAS, INC. d/b/a SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC; and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. d/b/a SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Before the court is "Defendant Volt Management Corp. d/b/a Volt Workforce Solutions' Motion to Compel Arbitration" ("Motion") [ECF No. 19], filed March 31, 2020 by Defendant Volt Management Corp. d/b/a Volt Workforce Solutions ("Volt"); "Schneider Electric Defendants' Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration" ("Notice of Non-Opposition") [ECF No. 20], filed April 7, 2020 by Defendants Schneider Electric USA, Inc. d/b/a Schneider Electric and Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. d/b/a Schneider Electric (collectively, the "Schneider Electric Defendants"); "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Volt Management Corp. d/b/a Volt Workforce Solutions' Motion to Compel Arbitration" [ECF No. 21], filed April 7, 2020 by Maria G. Castaneda ("Plaintiff"); and "Reply Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration" ("Reply") [ECF No. 22], filed April 14, 2020 by Volt. Therein, Volt requests the court compel arbitration and dismiss this cause.1 Upondue consideration of the Motion, Notice of Non-Opposition, Response, Reply, and applicable law, the court Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This case arises out of an employment dispute between the Schneider Electric Defendants, Volt, and Plaintiff. Volt is a temporary employee leasing agency that leases employees to Schneider Electric Defendants.2 Volt hired Plaintiff as an on-site coordinator at Schneider Electric USA, inc. to manage human resources issues with respect to employees leased by Volt to Schneider Electric.3 Plaintiff alleges disability discrimination and retaliation by both Volt and Schneider Electric Defendants.4
Volt argues Plaintiff agreed on multiple occasions to submit any employment-related claims to arbitration.5 First, Plaintiff's employment application contained an agreement to arbitrate "any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of, involving, affecting or related in any way to . . . your employment or the termination of your employment."6 Plaintiff completed this application electronically and submitted it via email.7 Volt asserts its employment agreement contained a similar provision submitting to arbitration "arising out of, involving, affecting or related in any way to Employee's employment or the conditions of employment or thetermination of Employee's employment."8 However, it cannot locate the signed employment agreement.9 Volt's Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Kendra Bellman, states Plaintiff received a copy of the employment agreement with her offer letter and was told she would sign the employment agreement on her first day of employment.10 Volt also provides a copy of the email with the employment agreement attached.11 Plaintiff's offer letter states the employment agreement contains an arbitration clause and signing the employment agreement was a condition of employment.12
In addition to the two agreements Volt asserts Plaintiff signed, Volt also contends its In-House Employee Handbook ("Handbook") contains an Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy explaining its policy to arbitrate disputes.13 The Handbook states that acceptance of its policies is a condition of employment.14 Volt distributed the Handbook to all employees, including Plaintiff.15
Volt contends Plaintiff's employment discrimination and retaliation claims must be referred to arbitration.16 Volt argues the arbitration provisions in both the application foremployment and the employment agreement are binding.17 Even were they not, Volt's Handbook made compliance with is alternative dispute resolution policy a condition of Plaintiff's at-will employment.18 Finally, Volt requests that, if the court compels arbitration, this action be dismissed.19
Plaintiff responds that no valid arbitration agreement exists as neither the employment application nor the employment agreement contain Plaintiff's signature.20 Additionally, she argues she was not bound by the alternative dispute resolution clause in the Handbook as she did not have notice of it.21 In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that even if there were a valid arbitration agreement, the court should not refer this action to arbitration as the Schneider Defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement.22 Plaintiff contends that compelling arbitration would cause multiple and contradicting determinations in different forums.23
In adjudicating a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ("FAA"), "[c]ourts perform a two step inquiry to determine whether to compel a party to arbitrate: first whether parties agreed to arbitrate and, second, whether federal statuteor policy renders the claims npnarbitrable."24 "The courts divide the first step into two more questions: whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and whether the dispute falls within that agreement."25 In determining whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement, courts should apply "ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts."26 The FAA establishes a strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements.27 In ruling on the motion to compel, the court should resolve any doubts about the arbitrability of a claim in favor of arbitration.28
Hearsay is a statement that is offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted"29 and is generally inadmissible.30 Contracts and all writings with independent legal significance are verbal acts rather than assertions.31 The admission of a contract to prove the operative fact of that contract's existence thus cannot be the subject of a valid hearsay objection.32 As such, theyare excluded from the definition of hearsay and are admissible evidence under any standard.33
Under the best evidence rule, a party seeking to prove the content of a writing, must produce the original writing itself.34 An "original" writing includes any "printout—or other output readable by sight—if it accurately reflects the information it contains."35 A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.36
Plaintiff argues the arbitration provisions contained in the employment application, employment agreement, and the Handbook should be disregarded as hearsay.37 However, as documents with independent legal significance, all three challenged documents are non-hearsay and admissible as evidence of a legally operative fact—whether Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate disputes with Volt.
Plaintiff argues the arbitration provisions contained in the employment application, employment agreement, and the Handbook are inadmissible under the best evidence rule.38 However, the employment application emailed by Plaintiff to Volt is an electronically storedoriginal document; therefore, there is no question as to its admissibility.39 The Handbook and employment agreement are duplicates and therefore admissible to the same extent as an original unless there is a genuine question as to their authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.40 Plaintiff fails to raise a genuine question about the authenticity of Defendant Volt's exhibits. While Plaintiff asserts she did not sign the agreements and did not have notice of the Handbook provision,41 neither argument calls into question the authenticity of the documents themselves. Nor does Plaintiff state what circumstances make it unfair to admit the documents. Therefore, the best evidence rule does not bar consideration of Volt's exhibits.
Under Texas law, the party attempting to compel arbitration bears the burden of establishing a valid arbitration agreement the scope of which includes the claims asserted.42 Once the party seeking to compel arbitration proves a valid arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to the party resisting arbitration to establish a defense to enforcement.43
A party is bound to an arbitration agreement if she received notice of the agreement and accepted it.44 Although the FAA requires an agreement to arbitrate be in writing, it contains no requirement the writing be signed by the parties and may be enforceable without a signature.45Texas contract law principles require only an intent by the parties to be bound, regardless of whether that intent is memorialized by signatures.46 In the absence of a signature, other evidence must be relied upon to prove the party's unconditional assent.47 Whether the parties intended to be bound is often a question of fact, but it may be resolved by the court "as a matter of law, especially where the contract is in writing.48
As the agreements are admissible, the court must determine whether the parties intended to be bound by them. Plaintiff's email exchange with Volt demonstrates her intent to be bound to the arbitration provision in her employment application. Plaintiff filled out the employment application and returned it to Volt without disputing any of its terms.49 The email states the application is "complete" and provides reference information Plaintiff.50 It is clear from the email that Plaintiff intends the application to entitle her to consideration for employment with Volt. Plaintiff did not reject the terms in the employment application or qualify her interest in employment. Plaintiff's only argument that she did not accept the arbitration provision in the employment application is...
To continue reading
Request your trial