In Re Halliburton Co.
80 S.W.3d 566, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 70, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1121 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer can unilaterally modify an at-will employment relationship to include a mandatory arbitration provision by providing unequivocal notice to the employee, and the employee's continued employment after the effective date constitutes acceptance of that provision.
Facts:
- James D. Myers was an at-will employee of Halliburton Company for approximately thirty years.
- In November 1997, Halliburton sent a notice to all employees, including Myers, announcing the adoption of a new Dispute Resolution Program.
- The program designated binding arbitration as the exclusive method for resolving all disputes between the company and its employees.
- The notice explicitly stated that by continuing to work for the company after January 1, 1998, employees would be accepting the new program.
- Myers received this notice and continued working for Halliburton after January 1, 1998.
- Sometime in 1998, Halliburton demoted Myers from his position as a General Welding Foreman.
- Myers alleged his demotion was the result of discrimination based on his race and age.
Procedural Posture:
- James D. Myers filed a lawsuit in district court (trial court) against Halliburton Company for wrongful demotion.
- Halliburton filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss the lawsuit based on its Dispute Resolution Program.
- The district court denied Halliburton's motion.
- Halliburton petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus, asking it to order the trial court to compel arbitration.
- The court of appeals denied Halliburton's petition.
- Halliburton then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus.
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 employer's unilateral implementation of a binding arbitration program, which an at-will employee accepts by continuing employment, create a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Phillips
Yes. An employer's unilateral implementation of a binding arbitration program creates a valid and enforceable agreement when an at-will employee accepts the new terms by continuing employment after receiving unequivocal notice. Under the two-part test from Hathaway v. General Mills, Halliburton provided unequivocal notice of the change in employment terms, and Myers accepted these terms as a matter of law by continuing to work after the program's effective date. The agreement is not illusory because the mutual promise to arbitrate became binding on both parties at the moment of acceptance and was not dependent on continued employment. Furthermore, Halliburton's right to modify or terminate the program was restricted, as it could not retroactively apply changes to disputes of which it already had notice. The court rejected a heightened 'knowing waiver' standard for statutory claims and held that the agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable, as 'take-it-or-leave-it' offers are permissible in an at-will context and the program's terms were fair.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the right of employers in Texas to unilaterally impose mandatory arbitration agreements on their at-will employees. It affirms that continued employment serves as both acceptance and consideration for modifying the employment contract, significantly lowering the bar for employers to enforce such provisions. The court's clarification that courts, not arbitrators, may decide claims of substantive unconscionability regarding the arbitration clause itself provides an important, albeit limited, safeguard for employees. Overall, the ruling strengthens the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the employment context and aligns Texas law with prevailing federal interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act.
