Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance

2017 WL 2241538 (2017)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

2017 WL 2241538 (2017)

Facts

After Susan Vance (defendant) was fired, she filed suit against her employer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, LLP (Alexander) (plaintiff). Alexander sought to compel arbitration, citing the company policy that required all claims not settled through negotiation or mediation to be submitted for arbitration. Alexander had sent an email to its employees in October 2016 alerting employees to a new dispute-resolution program that could be viewed within the employee-handbook folder located on Alexander’s server. The new dispute-resolution program outlined the arbitration policy, but the email itself did not explain the substance of the program or mention arbitration. Vance argued that there was no valid arbitration agreement. Alexander argued that Vance had sufficient notice of the arbitration policy and had a duty to investigate the policy further after she received the email. Federal law favored arbitration agreements, and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) permitted a party to compel arbitration if another party had failed to comply with the agreement. Under the FAA, a court assessed whether there was an agreement to arbitrate claims, which involved determining whether the arbitration agreement was valid and whether the claim was within the agreement’s scope. A court then determined whether any legal reason existed not to enforce the agreement. Texas law allowed enforcement of arbitration agreements if the employee was notified of the policy requiring arbitration and accepted the policy. An employee who kept working after notice of the policy accepted the policy as a matter of law. Notice could be express, or notice could be implied. A court evaluated whether an employee received express notice first, and if not, the court assessed whether the employee received implied notice. Notice was implied if an employee had a duty to investigate further. Such a duty related specifically to issues that were fairly suggested from the information actually communicated to the employee.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pitman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership