Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samantha Heard, a former employee of Andrews Behavioral Health, alleged that the company terminated her employment on February 6, 2026. She sued on May 19, 2026, asserting race-discrimination and retaliation claims under Texas law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Andrews Behavioral Health moved to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, relying on an at-will employment agreement containing an arbitration clause. Heard responded with a one-paragraph request for a jury to decide whether the case should proceed to arbitration, citing Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, but she did not offer evidence disputing the agreement’s formation.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to compel arbitration. It held that Heard was not entitled to a jury trial under Section 4 because she had not raised a genuine factual dispute about the existence or making of the arbitration agreement. Although the employment agreement lacked Heard’s handwritten signature, the court found a valid agreement under Texas law based on her electronic acceptance, her continued employment, the absence of any contractual term making signatures a condition of assent, and the parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate.
The agreement also contained a valid delegation clause expressly assigning disputes about the agreement’s interpretation, scope, validity, enforcement, and the arbitrability of claims to the arbitrator. The court therefore left questions concerning whether Heard’s particular claims were arbitrable to the arbitrator. Finding no federal statute or policy making her claims nonarbitrable, the court stayed the litigation and administratively closed the case pending arbitration, directing the parties to notify it within five days after the arbitration proceedings conclude.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking a jury trial under Section 4 of the FAA must produce evidence creating a genuine factual dispute over the making or existence of the arbitration agreement; merely quoting the statute and demanding a jury is insufficient.
- Under Texas law, an unsigned written arbitration agreement may be enforceable when signatures are not expressly required for assent, and electronic acceptance and continued employment may demonstrate agreement.
- A valid delegation clause sends gateway questions about the scope and arbitrability of particular claims to the arbitrator rather than the court.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden employees face when contesting arbitration at the motion-to-compel stage. A substantive, evidence-supported denial of assent is necessary to place contract formation genuinely in dispute.
It also underscores the practical force of delegation clauses: once the court determines that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that the clause delegates arbitrability, the arbitrator ordinarily decides whether the asserted statutory employment claims fall within the agreement.