|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petition
for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed in Part and Conditionally Granted in Part, and
Majority and Concurring Opinions filed September 30, 2005.
In
The
Fourteenth
Court of Appeals
____________
NO.
14-04-01008-CV
____________
IN
RE: CHOICE HOMES, INC., MICKY MAY, AND JAMES B. WHITE
C
O N C U R R I N G O P I N I
O N
I
concur with the majority, but write separately to express concern about the
use of an Employee Injury Benefit Plan to eliminate a former employee=s
right to a jury trial when pursuing legal remedies against a former fellow
employee for conduct wholly unrelated to or outside the course and scope of
employment. Succinctly, I would
discourage future litigants from contending that the majority opinion provides
authority for courts to compel arbitration under those circumstances.
With this reservation, I agree with the majority that
we
must focus on the plaintiffs=
factual allegations in order to determine whether the claims fall within the
scope of the arbitration agreement. Prudential
Sec. Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex. 1995).
I concur with the majority because the appellate record supports the
assertion that the described claims relate to circumstances surrounding
plaintiffs=
employment relationships that occurred before or after plaintiffs were
terminated. Moreover, arbitration
of disputes is strongly favored under federal and state law. Id.
at 898.
/s/
Charles W. Seymore
Justice
Petition
for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed in Part and Conditionally Granted in Part, and
Majority and Concurring Opinions filed September 30, 2005.
Panel
consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Guzman.
(Frost, J., majority.)
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
