Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Howard v. Akima Global Services — magistrate judge recommended arbitration and a stay

Reported / Citable

Case
David Russell Howard v. Akima Global Services, LLC, and Akima, LLC
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
LAURA ENRIQUEZ
Date Decided
May 8, 2026
Docket No.
3:26-cv-00344-LS
Topics
Arbitration, employment, FAA, USERRA

Background

David Russell Howard sued Akima Global Services, LLC and Akima, LLC, asserting employment-related claims under USERRA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration and sought either dismissal without prejudice or, alternatively, a stay pending arbitration. After reviewing the arbitration materials, Howard did not oppose arbitration, but requested a stay rather than dismissal. The defendants agreed that a stay would provide appropriate relief if the court declined to dismiss.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez recommended granting the motion in part. The recommendation found that Howard and Akima entered a written arbitration agreement and that Howard’s statutory employment claims fell within its broad coverage of disputes arising from the employment relationship, including ADA, FLSA, and military- or veteran-status discrimination claims.

The magistrate judge further recommended staying, rather than dismissing, the action. Because Howard requested a stay, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act required one once the court found the dispute arbitrable, under Smith v. Spizzirri. The recommendation would deny the defendants’ dismissal request in light of that stay.

Key Takeaways

  • The parties did not dispute the validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
  • Howard’s USERRA, FLSA, and ADA claims were within the agreement’s scope.
  • When a party requests a Section 3 FAA stay, the court must stay an arbitrable case rather than dismiss it.

Why It Matters

The recommendation applies the Supreme Court’s direction in Smith v. Spizzirri that a requested FAA stay is mandatory after a court determines that the dispute must proceed to arbitration. It also illustrates that broadly worded employment arbitration agreements can encompass multiple federal statutory claims.

This was a report and recommendation, subject to objections and review by the district judge; it was not itself a final district-court order.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top