In re Halliburton Co.
Texas Supreme Court
80 S.W.3d 566 (2002)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
James D. Myers (plaintiff) was an at-will employee for approximately 30 years at Brown & Root Energy Services, which became a subsidiary of Halliburton Company (Halliburton) (defendant). In November 1997, Halliburton notified its employees that it was adopting a binding-arbitration program that would serve as the exclusive method of resolving employment disputes starting on January 1, 1998. The arbitration agreement included certain provisions for employee protection, including Halliburton paying employees’ arbitration fees and both parties participating to select the arbitrator. The notice stated that by remaining employed after the effective date, employees were accepting the arbitration agreement. Myers received the notice and continued working for Halliburton. In 1998, Halliburton demoted Myers. In October 1999, Myers sued Halliburton in district court, alleging that he was demoted due to his race and age in violation of state antidiscrimination law. Myers bypassed arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was illusory and unconscionable. Halliburton moved to compel arbitration, the district court denied the motion, and the appeals court denied Halliburton’s petition for writ of mandamus to enforce the arbitration agreement. Halliburton then petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phillips, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.