Valdez v. Autozone, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 3 MOTION to Compel Arbitration. Case administratively closed on 2/17/2015 pending arbitration.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NAOMI VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOZONE INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-14-3386

O RDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. 3. After
considering the parties’ filings and the applicable law, the court determines that the motion should
be GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff Naomi Valdez filed suit in state court against her former employer, Autozone, Inc.
(“Autozone”), alleging sex and disability discrimination. Dkt. 1-1 at 3. Both parties agree that
Autozone’s Occupational Injury Benefit Plan contains an enforceable arbitration provision. Dkts.
3, 4. However, they disagree about whether the arbitration provision covers all of plaintiff’s claims
asserted in this case. Plaintiff argues that all of her claims are subject to arbitration while defendant
argues that plaintiff’s claims of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work
environment are not covered by the arbitration clause, which is limited to claims made “in
connection with a job-related injury.” Dkt. 4-1 at 8.
This court will not decide whether the claims are covered by the provision, because the
contract between the parties also states that “[t]he determination of whether a claim is covered by
this Section shall also be subject to mediation and arbitration under this Section.” Id. at 9.
Defendant acknowledges this provision and claims that it is not opposed to arbitrating the question

of arbitrability. Plaintiff acknowledges it as well but claims that defendant has waived its right to
assert this provision because of its initial refusal to arbitrate the entire case. Dkt. 5. Defendant’s
argument that certain of plaintiff’s claims are not subject to arbitration is not sufficient to deprive
it of the right to assert application of the arbitration clause to other claims—including the
arbitrability of the disputed claims.
A party waives its right to arbitration when it “substantially invokes the judicial process to
the detriment or prejudice of the other party.” Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distrib. Co., 781
F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 1986). Defendant has not substantially invoked the judicial process, and
plaintiff has not shown detriment or prejudice. This case was initiated by plaintiff and has been
pending for fewer than four months. Accordingly, the court determines that defendant has not
waived its right to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED IN PART. The parties are ORDERED
to submit the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to an arbitrator pursuant to the terms of
the agreement between the parties. The parties are ORDERED to arbitrate any claims that the
arbitrator determines are subject to the arbitration agreement. Any claims not covered by the
agreement, as determined by the arbitrator, may be litigated in this court.

This case is

administratively CLOSED pending arbitration, and will be reinstated upon motion of the parties and
a determination by the court.
Signed at Houston, Texas on February 17, 2015.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge
2