Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO, 3:04-CV-1058-P.
July 30, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court for consideration is Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and/or Mediation and Motion for Dismissal, filed May 17, 2004. After a thorough review of the evidence, the pleading, the brief, and applicable law, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and/or Mediation and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Dismissal.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, did not file a response.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
Defendant, General Electric Polymershapes ("GEP"), operates an Area Distribution Center in Coppell, Texas that distributes plastic sheet, sheet rod, and film to its other branches for delivery to its customers. Def.'s Mot. at 2. In order to expeditiously resolve employment disputes at the Coppell facility, GEP introduced a four-step dispute resolution program called RESOLVE ("RESOLVE Program") in December 2000. Def.'s App. at 1. The RESOLVE Program provides four levels of resolution and allows respective parties to move to the next level if the matter is not solved at a lower level. Def.'s App. at 2.
Level One involves discussion between the employee and his reporting manager. Def.'s App. at 6-7, 12. Level Two involves presenting the concern to higher-level management or, where available, to a peer review process. Id. At Level Three, the dispute is sent to mediation. Id. The final level, Level Four, is arbitration. Id. Under the RESOLVE Program, the results of arbitration are not binding on employees hired before October 1, 1999, the effective date of the RESOLVE Program, but they are binding on employees hired after the effective date. Id. The RESOLVE Program does not bar employees from filing administrative claims or charges with government agencies. Def.'s App. at 10
October 1, 1999 is the date General Electric Plastics, an affiliate of Defendant, implemented the RESOLVE Program. Def.'s App. at 1. This effective date applies to all affiliates.
Plaintiff was hired as a Saw Technician at the Coppell facility effective October 28, 2002. Def.'s App. at 2. Plaintiff was given a copy of the RESOLVE Policy and the Employee Handbook at this time, which listed the covered claims under the RESOLVE Program. Def.'s App. at 1, 43-57. As a condition of his employment, Plaintiff executed an "Acknowledgment-Conditions of Employment" form ("Acknowledgment"). Def.'s App. at 58. By signing the form, Plaintiff acknowledged that he (1) had received and reviewed the RESOLVE Policy and the RESOLVE Process Employee Handbook; (2) agreed to resolve employment-related disputes in accordance with the RESOLVE Program; and (3) waived the right to pursue in court "covered claims." Id. The RESOLVE Program specifically states, "if an employee files a lawsuit asserting a covered claim before completing all four levels of the RESOLVE Program, GE Plastics will ask the court to dismiss the case and refer it to RESOLVE." Def.'s App. at 52.
On September 3, 2003, Defendant terminated Plaintiff for failing to follow the safety operating procedure with respect to lock out/tag out procedures when changing a fuse in an electrical lift table. Def.'s App. at 2. Pursuant to the RESOLVE Program, Plaintiff submitted a Level One form challenging the grounds for his termination and requesting reinstatement on October 6, 2003. Def.'s App. at 2, 59-60. Defendant provided Plaintiff with a written response on October 23, 2003, upholding his termination and denying his request for reinstatement. Def.'s App. at 2-3, 61. Dissatisfied with the Level One outcome, Plaintiff submitted a Level Two form requesting review of the Level One decision on November 12, 2003. Def.'s App. at 3; 62-63. Higher management provided Plaintiff with a written response on December 4, 2003, concurring with the initial termination decision and affirming the Level One decision. Def.'s App. at 3, 64. Plaintiff had fourteen days from the date of the Level Two response to proceed to Level Three of the RESOLVE Program, but he did not do so. Def.'s Mot. at 5; Def.'s App. at 3, 21, 50. Rather, on January 13, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming race discrimination. Def.'s App. at 4, 66-68. The EEOC dismissed the Charge the same day it was filed. Def.'s App. at 69.
On April 12, 2004, Plaintiff filed his Original Petition in the District Court, Dallas County, Texas, 68th Judicial District ("State Court Lawsuit"). Def.'s Mot. at 5. Plaintiff's claims in the State Court Lawsuit included: (1) race discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as well as violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violations of the Texas Labor and Insurance Codes arising from the same facts. Id. Defendant removed the State Court Lawsuit to this Court on May 17, 2004. Id.
II. Discussion
Because Defendant's work involves interstate commerce, the law governing this dispute is the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). See 9 U.S.C. § 1-16 (1999); see also In re Tenet Healthcare, Ltd., 84 S.W.3d 760 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002). Under the FAA, applicable state contract law is used to settle disputes. In re Palm Harbor Homes, 129 S.W.3d 636, 643 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003).
a. The Parties Entered Into a Valid Agreement
Texas contract law mandates that "a contract must be based on valid consideration, in other words, mutuality of obligation." Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 409 (Tex. 1997); see also In re C H News Co., 133 S.W.3d 642, 647 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2003); In re Palm Harbor Homes, 129 S.W.3d at 643. Consideration is a bargained for exchange of promises, consisting of benefits and detriments to the contracting parties. Fed. Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 409-10 ( citing Roark v. Stallworth Oil Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex. 1991)). Furthermore, a binding contract must have an offer and an acceptance and the offer must be accepted in strict compliance with its terms. Williford v. Submergible Cable, 895 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1994).
In this case, Defendant made an offer of employment to Plaintiff, contingent upon his execution of the Acknowledgment. Def.'s App. at 58. Plaintiff accepted the offer by signing the Acknowledgment. Id. In executing the Acknowledgment, Plaintiff promised to settle employment-related disputes in accordance with the RESOLVE Program and be bound by the results, and waived his right to pursue "covered claims" in court. Id. at 6-7, 58. Defendant, in return, hired and paid Plaintiff, and agreed to be bound by the results of the RESOLVE Program. Id. at 31.
All Plaintiff's claims are included in the list of "covered claims." Def.'s App. at 11-12, 54.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff's decision to initiate proceedings through the RESOLVE Program suggests that he considered his employment agreement to be valid and binding. Def.'s App. at 2, 59-60.
Because the agreement involved an offer and an acceptance and was based on valid consideration, or mutuality of obligation, the Court finds the agreement enforceable in its entirety. Having determined that the parties entered into a valid agreement, the Court now turns to Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Because the agreement to arbitrate is an element of the RESOLVE Program, it is also enforceable. Defendant briefs this subject in great depth. See generally Def.'s Mot.
b. Plaintiff's Claims Should Be Dismissed
The Court's goal is to give effect to the written expression of the parties' intent, viewing the contract in its entirety, consistent with applicable rules of law. Tex. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 996 S.W.2d 873, 879 (Tex. 1999). Furthermore, Courts may dismiss a case when the plaintiff has waived the right to pursue judicial remedies. See generally Singleton v. ASI Corp., No. 3:00-CV-0742-R, 2001 WL 167911 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2001).
In this case, both parties intended that employment-related disputes be settled through the RESOLVE Program rather than in a judicial forum. Def.'s App. at 58. To ensure that disputes would be settled in accordance with the RESOLVE Program, Defendant required Plaintiff to waive his right to pursue covered claims in court. Id. By executing the Acknowledgment, a valid agreement, Plaintiff indisputably agreed that he would not pursue covered claims in court. Def.'s App. at 58. Thus, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the parties' intent and enforce the valid agreement.
Because Plaintiff has waived the right to pursue covered claims in court, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff's claims were filed against two additional defendants, Mike Reikart and Tara Tuccio, who were not served. Tuccio is a Human Resources Manager with responsibility for the Coppell facility and the Court has inferred, based upon Plaintiff's original Complaint which states "Mike Reikart . . . choice [sic] to terminate Plaintiff employment," that Reikart is also a manager. Def.'s App. at 1; Pl.'s Compl. at 3. Only GEP filed the present motion. However, the Court has reviewed the RESOLVE Program's section on covered claims, which states in pertinent part "covered claims are employment-related claims against the Company or individual managers acting within the scope of their employment." Def.'s App. at 11. Because all of Plaintiff's claims are covered claims and the additional parties were acting within the scope of their employment, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims with respect to Tuccio and Reikart as well.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and/or Mediation and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Dismissal. Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.