#ALORICA EIS TRIAL#
At the end of the hearing, the trial court permitted limited discovery related to "this procedure for the process of sending out these forms," allowing Lawler to be deposed, and invited supplemental briefing.
#ALORICA EIS SERIES#
proceeding).ĭuring summation at the first hearing, Alorica referenced an affidavit attached to its motion to compel arbitration that was written by Susannah Lawler, Alorica's regional senior human resources manager, in which Lawler vouched for a series of substantive and demonstrative screenshots taken from the EIS portal purportedly showing that Tovar's login credentials were used to access a messaging center and view the arbitration agreement. I never received it." She testified that she had not given out her login credentials to anyone and that she did not know why Alorica's records reflected she received notice.Ī non-movant who submits evidence raising an issue of material fact as to the existence of an arbitration agreement can trigger an evidentiary hearing. When asked on cross-examination if it was possible that she had received it and did not remember, Tovar replied, "No. She acknowledged having used the company's internal email system before but she again denied receiving notice of the arbitration agreement at all and stated that she would have never agreed to the document. At the first hearing on January 9, 2017, Tovar gave live testimony. In response to Tovar's filing, the trial court forewent summary disposition and held two Tipps hearings.
She testified that if she had known of the arbitration agreement, she would not have signed it and did not and does not agree to its terms. She denied signing or clicking anything to indicate that she knew, agreed to, or received notice of the agreement. She averred that she was never presented with the arbitration agreement either in paper or electronic form, nor was she informed by anybody that she was subject to an arbitration policy. In her affidavit, she testified that she had never seen or heard of the arbitration agreement at issue in this case until January 2017, after she filed suit. In response to Alorica's motion to compel arbitration, Tovar contested the existence of an arbitration agreement and submitted a sworn affidavit to the trial court. We will affirm the order denying the motion to compel arbitration.ĥ10 S.W.3d 559 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2016, pet.
Its judgment resolving this formation dispute rested on legally sufficient evidence, meaning that we cannot disturb the decision. The trial court was presented with conflicting evidence regarding contract formation. Our prior decision in Kmart Stores of Texas, L.
Alorica appealed, asking this Court to credit the company's electronic records over Tovar's sworn denial as a matter of law and compel arbitration on that basis. The trial court, crediting Tovar's evidence over that of Alorica, denied the motion to compel arbitration. In a sworn affidavit and again at a Tipps hearing, Tovar denied ever seeing, receiving, or agreeing to the terms of the arbitration agreement. Alorica moved to arbitrate Tovar's claims, asserting that the company's electronic records showed that Tovar received notice of a mandatory arbitration agreement and accepted its terms both explicitly and impliedly by continuing to show up for work. Mary Lou Tovar sued her former employer Alorica following her termination, alleging disability discrimination and workers' compensation retaliation claims.
Appeal from the 327th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 201) OPINION
0 kommentar(er)
