In re Dillard Department Stores, Inc. and Grizelda Reeder

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief directing a trial court to compel arbitration of an employee's defamation claims against Dillard Department Stores and related parties. The court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and non-illusory, and that the employee's claims fell within its scope because defamation could constitute a personal injury connected to the employee's termination.

Holdings

1. The 2000 arbitration agreement was valid, enforceable, and not illusory because both parties agreed to and signed it and neither the agreement nor its rules gave Dillard a unilateral right to modify the agreement or rules.
2. Martinez's defamation claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the agreement's reference to personal injuries was susceptible of an interpretation including injuries to reputation.
3. Martinez's defamation claim arose from her termination and was arbitrable because the alleged defamatory comments occurred near the time of termination and the claimed damages were tied to employment and termination.
4. Mandamus relief was appropriate because the trial court clearly abused its discretion by denying the motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2000 arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable or illusory because Dillard allegedly retained a unilateral right to modify it.
2. Whether Martinez's defamation claim fell within the scope of the 2000 arbitration agreement's coverage of personal injuries and claims arising from employment or termination.
3. Whether mandamus relief was appropriate after the trial court denied Dillard's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Disposition

writ_granted