Humphreys v. Houston Pizza Ventures, Inc.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GANTED 14 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Plaintiff's Original Complaint, ORDER STAYING CASE GANTED 14 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Plaintiff's Original Complaint. Case terminated on 9/29/2017Counsel shall file a written status report on December 15, 2017, and every four (4) months thereafter until suchtime as the arbitration process is completed.(Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

CRYSTAL HUMPHREYS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON PIZZA VENTURE
RESTAURANT GROUP,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 29, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-0935

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc. # 14]
filed by Defendant Houston Pizza Venture Restaurant Group, to which Plaintiff
Crystal Humphreys filed a Response [Doc. # 15], and Defendant filed a Reply [Doc.
# 20]. The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on September 28, 2017. Having
considered the full record, including the evidence presented at the September 28
hearing, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court grants the Motion to Compel
Arbitration.
I.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff twice worked as a delivery driver for Defendant at its Papa John’s

location in The Woodlands, Texas. Plaintiff first began her employment with

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

Defendant in January 2015. Defendant’s payroll records reflect that Plaintiff left
Defendant’s employ voluntarily in July 20151 and returned in November 2015.
Plaintiff alleges in this lawsuit that she was sexually harassed by a coworker.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against her by ignoring
her complaints, revoking a promotion and raise, and other “various forms” of
discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct forced her
to resign.
Defendant has a Dispute Resolution Program (“DRP”) that requires arbitration
of employment-related disputes. The standard “onboarding” procedure at Defendant’s
business is for a newly-hired employee to complete multiple employment, employee
benefit, and related documents electronically. One of the documents presented during
the onboarding process is a notice of the DRP, with a link to access and review the
complete program terms. The employee electronically acknowledges having received
notice of and having agreed to the DRP’s requirement for arbitration. The employee
cannot advance to the next page in the onboarding process without completing all
required information on the current page, and cannot complete the pages of the
onboarding process other than in sequence. A new employee is not officially hired
and included in the payroll system until the onboarding process is complete.

1

Plaintiff testified that she stopped working in July 2015 for medical reasons.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

2

Plaintiff testified that she submitted a handwritten application for employment
with Defendant in January 2015. See DX 12. At different times during her testimony,
Plaintiff testified variously that the signature on the Application “appears to be” her
signature, that she did not remember signing the Application, and that she did not sign
the Application. The Court finds that the handwriting on both the first page and the
second page of the Application is the same, and further finds that Plaintiff signed the
Application.
The following appears in bold print immediately above Plaintiff’s signature on
the second page:
I agree that submitting this application requires me to bring any legal
dispute related to my application for employment or employment in
arbitration under the Company’s Dispute Resolution Program rather than
in court before a judge or jury, and I hereby waive trial before a court or
jury for any such legal dispute. I understand that I may ask to review a
copy of the DRP if I wish and I agree that I have done so to the extent I
feel it necessary.
See January 2015 Application. At the bottom of the first page, Plaintiff listed
“computer skills” as one of her special skills. See id.
Plaintiff testified that during the onboarding process in January 2015, General
Manager Will Ward read the screens of the electronic process to her as they appeared
on the computer. Plaintiff testified that Ward did not, however, read or otherwise
mention the DRP screen information. The DRP screen provides notice that any

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

3

disputes must be addressed “through an arbitration process as outlined in the
Company’s Dispute Resolution Program.” See Dispute Resolution Program Screen
[DX 2; DX 4, p. 43], noting that it was “Electronically Signed” on January 16, 2015
at 2:10 p.m. by Plaintiff, who is also identified as the “Portal User.” See id. Plaintiff
testified that Ward moved from screen to screen without her ability to view the
computer screen. Plaintiff testified that there were three videos she was required to
view during the onboarding process. Plaintiff testified that each time it was necessary
for her to view a video, Ward would change seats with her while she viewed the video
and then change seats again after the video was complete. Plaintiff offers no credible
explanation for the General Manager performing the onboarding process for her. She
had a high school diploma, had completed some college, and claimed to have
computer skills. She testified that the onboarding process required 40 or 45 minutes
to complete. The repeated seat-swapping is not credible and would have been
cumbersome at best. The Court finds that Plaintiff performed her own onboarding
process, including accessing the DRP screen.
When Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant in November 2015, she
submitted another handwritten Application [DX 13]. Plaintiff testified that she did not
complete or sign the November Application, but that she instead provided the new
information to Ward separately. The handwriting on the November Application is

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

4

virtually identical to the handwriting on the January Application. Plaintiff’s signature
on both Applications is almost identical, and both signatures are very similar to
Plaintiff’s admitted signatures in the record.2 Ward’s handwriting is very different,
in size and style, than Plaintiff’s.

The Court finds that Plaintiff entered the

handwritten information and signed the November Application. The November
Application includes, immediately above the signature line, the same agreement to
submit disputes to arbitration as the January Application. The November Application
also includes Plaintiff’s claim to have computer skills.
Plaintiff testified that she did not participate in an electronic onboarding process
at the time she returned to Defendant’s employ in November 2015. She testified that
Ward completed the onboarding process for her in her absence. Plaintiff testified that
she provided Ward with certain information to use during the onboarding process, and
she believes he may have located other necessary information in documents and
records at the company.
In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff completed the handwritten Applications
and the electronic onboarding process in January 2015 and in November 2015. Each
Application includes an agreement to submit employment-related disputes to

2

Plaintiff changed her last named because she married. The handwriting of the first
name is extremely close in both applications. Any differences are minor and well
within the typical deviations of any person’s signature on different documents.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

5

arbitration and an explanation that there will be no court proceeding or trial before a
judge or jury. The Court finds that Plaintiff signed both Applications immediately
below the bolded paragraph agreeing to arbitration.
In connection with each onboarding process, Plaintiff’s electronic signature
appears on the page acknowledging the DRP, and she had a unique, personal password
that was unknown to Defendant or any of its employees. Plaintiff may not have read
the actual DRP, which is a link on the onboarding process page giving notice of the
arbitration requirement in the DRP. Indeed, Plaintiff may have acknowledged the
DRP screen without reading that screen. The Court finds, however, that she accessed
the screen notifying her of the DRP’s requirement for arbitration and input her
electronic signature as acknowledging and agreeing to the DRP.
II.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“Arbitration is ‘a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to

arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’” PaineWebber Inc. v.
The Chase Manhattan Private Bank (Switzerland), 260 F.3d 453, 462 (5th Cir. 2001)
(quoting United Steelworkers of Amer. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582
(1960)). Therefore, the Court must determine whether there is a valid agreement

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

6

between the parties to arbitrate their dispute.3 See Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill,
367 F.3d 426, 429 (5th Cir. 2004). In deciding whether the parties entered into a valid
agreement to arbitrate, the Court applies general contract principles. Will-Drill
Resources, Inc. v. Samson Resources Co., 352 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 2003).
Under Texas general contract law, unless a party to a contract was fraudulently
induced into signing the agreement, he is legally presumed to know the contents of the
contract he executed whether or not he actually read the agreement. See, e.g.,
DeClaire v. G & B McIntosh Family Ltd. P’ship, 260 S.W.3d 34, 47 (Tex. App. –
Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“A party to a written agreement is charged as a
matter of law with the knowledge of its provisions . . . unless he can demonstrate that
he was tricked into its execution.”). Indeed, it is a “cardinal rule of contract law,
recognized by the Supreme Court more than a century ago,4 that a party is bound by
a contract to which he signified his assent and cannot be heard to complain that he did
not read its contents.” Marsh v. First USA Bank, 103 F. Supp. 909, 919 (N.D. Tex.
3

A second requirement is that the dispute in question falls within the scope of the
arbitration agreement. See, e.g., Pennzoil Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Ramco Energy
Ltd., 139 F.3d 1061, 1065 (5th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Halliburton Co., 583 F.3d 228,
234 (5th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff does not contest that her sexual harassment and other
employment-related claims in this lawsuit would fall within the scope of the
arbitration agreement.

4

“It will not do for a man to enter into a contract, and, when called upon to respond to
its obligations, to say that he did not read it when he signed it, or did not know what
it contained. If this were permitted, contracts would not be worth the paper on which
they are written. But such is not the law.” Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U.S. 45, 50 (1875).

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

7

2000); see Cajun Elec. Power Coop. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 791 F.2d 353 (5th Cir.
1986) (“one is presumed to have read a contract that one signs”).
A certified digital signature is a valid form of signature. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 7001(a); Klein v. Delbert Servs. Corp., 2015 WL 1503427, *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1,
2015).
Plaintiff had notice, both electronically and in paper form, of the existence of
the arbitration requirement. She agreed to the arbitration requirement, and she and
Defendant entered into a valid arbitration agreement. The DRP applies to the sexual
harassment and other employment-related disputes presented in this case. As a result,
Plaintiff and Defendant are required to arbitrate this dispute in accordance with the
DRP.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc. # 14] is

GRANTED and the parties are required to arbitrate this dispute in accordance with
the DRP. It is further
ORDERED that this case is STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED pending completion of the arbitration process. Counsel shall file a written

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

8

status report on December 15, 2017, and every four (4) months thereafter until such
time as the arbitration process is completed.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 29th day of September, 2017.

NANCY F. ATLAS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\0935MCompelArb.wpd

170929.1549

9