Flemma v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
2013 NMSC 022, 4 N.M. 317 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's promise to arbitrate is illusory and fails as consideration where the employer retains the unilateral right to amend or terminate the arbitration agreement after an employee's claim has accrued but before arbitration proceedings have been initiated. Enforcing such an agreement, even if valid under the law of the state where it was formed, violates New Mexico public policy because it is substantively unconscionable.
Facts:
- Edward Flemma began working for Halliburton Energy Services in 1982 and eventually became a district manager in Farmington, New Mexico.
- While serving as district manager, Flemma opposed a company initiative to consolidate facilities at a location known as Troy King, citing public safety concerns.
- In August 2006, Flemma's supervisor, Richard Montman, warned him, 'if you value your career, you will keep your mouth shut about the Troy King property.'
- Despite the warning, Flemma continued to express his safety concerns, preparing an executive summary in July 2007 that reiterated the public safety issues at the Troy King location.
- On four separate occasions between 1997 and 2001, while Flemma was working in Texas and Louisiana, Halliburton mailed him materials regarding a Dispute Resolution Program (DRP).
- The DRP materials stated that an employee's continued employment constituted acceptance of the DRP's terms, which included mandatory arbitration for all employment-related disputes.
- The DRP allowed Halliburton to amend or terminate the plan at any time, with the change not applying to a dispute for which a proceeding had already been formally initiated.
- In April 2008, Montman terminated Flemma's employment, stating he was 'not meeting my expectations.'
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Flemma filed a complaint for wrongful and retaliatory discharge against Halliburton in a New Mexico district court (trial court).
- Halliburton filed a motion to compel arbitration based on its Dispute Resolution Program.
- The district court denied Halliburton's motion to compel arbitration.
- Halliburton (as appellant) appealed the denial to the New Mexico Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court, finding the arbitration agreement enforceable under Texas law.
- Flemma (as appellant) appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of New Mexico (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arbitration agreement that allows an employer to unilaterally amend its terms after an employee's claim accrues but before a proceeding is initiated violate New Mexico public policy, making the agreement unenforceable even if it was formed in a jurisdiction that would enforce it?
Opinions:
Majority - Vigil, Justice
Yes, such an agreement violates New Mexico public policy and is unenforceable. Although traditional choice of law rules point to Texas law, where the contract was formed, New Mexico may decline to apply foreign law if it violates a fundamental state public policy. The Halliburton arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable under New Mexico law because it is unreasonably one-sided. It grants Halliburton the power to amend or terminate the agreement in the critical period after an employee's claim accrues (e.g., upon termination) but before a formal arbitration proceeding is initiated, effectively allowing the company to 'change the rules of the game just before it starts.' Because enforcing this unconscionable agreement would offend New Mexico public policy, the court applies New Mexico law. Under New Mexico law, Halliburton's promise to arbitrate is illusory and fails as consideration because of its unilateral right to modify the agreement post-accrual. Without valid consideration, no enforceable arbitration agreement was formed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the public policy exception to the traditional 'lex loci contractus' (law of the place of the contract) choice of law rule, particularly in the context of adhesive employment contracts. The court's focus on the period between claim accrual and the initiation of proceedings narrows the permissible scope of an employer's unilateral modification power in arbitration agreements. It establishes a precedent in New Mexico that for an employer's promise to arbitrate to constitute valid consideration, the terms must be fixed at the moment a claim arises, not at the later point of formal filing. This provides greater protection for at-will employees against one-sided arbitration clauses that could be altered to the employer's advantage after a dispute has already begun.
