Bates v. GE Oil & GAS, LLC

Filing 9

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 3 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss. This case is STAYED pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Case terminated on December 14, 2017.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RUBY L. BATES,
Plaintiff,
VS.
GE OIL & GAS, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

December 14, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-3094

ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Before this Court is the plaintiff’s, Ruby L. Bates (the “plaintiff”), motion for judgment

on the pleadings or alternative motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 2). In response to the
plaintiff’s motion, the defendant, GE Oil & Gas, LLC (the “defendant”), has filed a motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss, (Dkt No. 3), to which the plaintiff has filed a response in
opposition to (Dkt. No. 7) and the defendant has filed a reply (Dkt. No. 8).1 After having
carefully considered the motions, responses, replies and the applicable law, the Court determines
that the motion for judgment on the pleadings or alternative motion for summary judgment
should be DENIED and the motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss should be GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
II.

BACKGROUND
The plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendant, her former employer,

on September 7, 2017 in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County Texas, alleging
unlawful employment practices, including claims for race, age, and disability discrimination and

1

Concurrently with its motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the defendant filed objections to the plaintiff’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings or alternative motion for summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 4). The
defendant’s objections are overruled.

1/5

retaliation, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Texas Labor
Code. (See Dkt. No. 1, Exs. A & C). On August 4, 2015, the plaintiff executed an agreement to
be bound by the defendant’s dispute resolution procedure of which arbitration is a component,
referred to as “Solutions-An Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure.” (“Solutions DRP”).
(See Dkt. No. 3, Ex. A). The Solutions DRP provides that “Covered Claims”, namely “all claims
that arise or arose out of or are or were related to an employee’s employment or cessation of
employment”, between the defendant and its employees, must be processed pursuant to the terms
of the procedure in effect at the time the claim is submitted. (Id., Ex. A at 3 - 4). Specifically,
“Covered Claims” within the meaning of the Solutions DRP are defined to include: claims
relating to compensation, demotion, promotion or other employment-related actions; claims
related to employment discrimination and harassment, premised on factors such as “age, race,
sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion, national
origin, veteran status, citizenship, handicap/disability, or other characteristic[s] protected by
law”; retaliation claims based on an employee’s engagement in legally-protected activity; and
claims for violations of the procedure mandated by the Solutions DRP. (Id., Ex. A at 5.).
On or about April 7, 2017, the plaintiff requested arbitration of her claims against the
defendant. On May 10, 2017, the defendant provided the plaintiff with additional forms to
facilitate the arbitration. On June 2, 2017, the plaintiff returned all completed forms to the
defendant but to no avail. On July 23, 2017, the plaintiff sent a follow-up email to the defendant
stating as follows:
It has now been nearly two months since I submitted th[e] form. I have heard
nothing further. If I have not heard something by the end of this week, we are
going to file a suit to compel arbitration. We will be seeking recovery of our
costs and attorneys’ fees.

2/5

(Dkt. No. 2 at App. 4). Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant action against the
defendant seeking an order compelling arbitration or, alternatively, a declaration from this Court
that the defendant has waived arbitration, together with costs and attorneys’ fees. On October
13, 2017, the defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction.
On October 18, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or
alternative motion for summary judgment, alleging that since the defendant concedes that her
underlying claims are subject to arbitration, she is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law
compelling the defendant to arbitrate her employment discrimination claims, together with court
costs, as the prevailing party in this lawsuit. The crux of the plaintiff’s lawsuit is that she was
forced to file this action because the defendant violated the Solutions DRP and refused to
arbitrate. As such, the plaintiff maintains that she is entitled to recover the $376.58 state court
filing fee she paid to initiate this civil action to enforce the parties’ agreement.
On November 8, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss,
asserting that this Court should enter an Order compelling the plaintiff to submit her claims to
arbitration and dismissing the instant lawsuit with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 3). Simultaneously
therewith, the defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
or alternative motion for summary judgment, contending that adjudication of the plaintiff’s
principal claim in this lawsuit—that the defendant has violated the Solutions DRP—must be
submitted for resolution to arbitration. (Dkt. No. 4). The plaintiff has filed a response in
opposition to the defendant’s motion to compel, essentially asserting that the defendant’s
gamesmanship should not be rewarded. This Court agrees.

3/5

When determining whether to compel arbitration, a court must first ascertain whether the
parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question. Safer v. Nelson Fin. Grp., Inc., 422 F.3d 289,
293 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Gaskamp, 280 F.3d 1069, 1073 (5th Cir.
2002)). In order to make the aforementioned assessment, the court must consider two questions:
(1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties; and (2) whether the parties’
dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Safer, 422 F.3d at 293 - 94 (internal citations
omitted). Any doubts regarding the scope of coverage of an arbitration clause within the parties’
agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration. See Neal v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 918
F.2d 34, 37 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). To this end, the Fifth Circuit has “held
that arbitration should not be denied ‘unless it can be said with positive assurance that an
arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation which would cover the dispute at issue.’”
Neal v. Hardee's Food Sys., Inc., 918 F.2d 34, 37 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Commerce Park at
DFW Freeport v. Mardian Const. Co., 729 F.2d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1984); Wick v. Atlantic
Marine, 605 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1979)).
In the matter now before the Court, it is beyond dispute that the parties have agreed to
arbitrate the matters at issue in this case and neither party disputes that it is a party to a valid
agreement providing for the same. Further, the plaintiff’s claims are not of the type that are
otherwise precluded from arbitration. As such, both the Solutions DRP and applicable case law
mandate that the matters for which the plaintiff now complains should properly be determined in
accordance with the procedures authorized by the Solutions DRP, not this Court. Accordingly,
based on the foregoing discussion, this Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. The plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or alternative motion for
summary judgment is DENIED;

4/5

2. The defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part;
3. The plaintiff is hereby awarded court costs in the amount of $376.58 for having to
commence the instant action to enforce the parties’ agreement. This sum is to be
paid within 10 days of the date of this Order;
4. This case is STAYED pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, pending the completion of
arbitration proceedings. This Court hereby retains jurisdiction to enforce the
arbitration award, if appropriate;
5. The Clerk is directed to administratively CLOSE this case pending arbitration;
and
6. All pending motions, if any, are hereby DENIED as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on this 14th day of December, 2017.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge

5/5