CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luna

Johnny Luna, an at-will employee, was terminated by Poly-America after filing a worker's compensation claim and subsequently sued for wrongful discharge and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code. Poly-America sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Luna had signed. Luna challenged the arbitration agreement's substantive unconscionability, specifically pointing to provisions on fee-splitting, limited remedies (prohibiting punitive damages and reinstatement), limited discovery, and the inability to apply a 'good cause' standard. The court determined that while individual provisions might not be unconscionable, the cumulative effect of the high arbitration costs and the significant limitations on statutory remedies rendered the agreement as a whole substantively unconscionable. The court also rejected Poly-America's argument for severability, concluding the problematic provisions were integral to the agreement. As a result, the court conditionally granted Luna's petition for writ of mandamus, instructing the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementSubstantive UnconscionabilityMandamus ReliefEmployment LawWorker's Compensation ActWrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimFee-Splitting ProvisionRemedy LimitationDiscovery Limitation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniel Mendivil v. Zanios Foods, Inc.

Daniel Mendivil, a former delivery-truck driver for Zanios Foods, Inc., appealed a trial court's decision to compel arbitration after his employment was terminated following an injury. Mendivil challenged the Arbitration Policy Statement (APS), arguing it was invalid due to lack of consideration, being illusory, and unconscionable. The appellate court examined the APS, a stand-alone arbitration agreement, and found that Zanios had not made mutual, binding promises to arbitrate its own disputes or be bound by arbitration results. Therefore, the court concluded that the APS lacked the necessary consideration, rendering it an illusory contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseLack of ConsiderationContract FormationEmployment DisputeTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewMutuality of ObligationAt-Will Employment
References
20
Case No. 08-13-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Whataburger Restaurants LLC v. Yvonne Cardwell

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, brought by Whataburger Restaurants LLC against Yvonne Cardwell. The trial court initially denied arbitration based on unconscionability. The appellate court found the trial court erred in its unconscionability analysis, and after a remand from the Texas Supreme Court, reviewed Cardwell's additional arguments for procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court sustained Whataburger's challenge to the trial court's findings on substantive unconscionability and overruled Cardwell's alternative claims of unconscionability. However, the court remanded the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was an "illusory contract" back to the trial court due to an incomplete record, declining to rule on this complex, fact-intensive inquiry at the appellate level.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityIllusory ContractEmployment DisputeWorkers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealTexas Supreme CourtContract LawAppellate ProcedureFederal Arbitration Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pony Express Courier Corp. v. Morris

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an arbitration agreement is unconscionable as a matter of law. Appellants Pony Express Corporation and Charles Bouie sought to compel arbitration with appellee Diane Morris, who sued them for various claims including sexual harassment. The trial court denied the appellants' motion, finding the arbitration agreement unconscionable without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by deeming the agreement unconscionable per se. It emphasized that unconscionability requires factual development regarding the circumstances surrounding the agreement, which was lacking in the trial court's decision.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityInterlocutory AppealAbuse of DiscretionStandard of ReviewEmployment LawSexual HarassmentContract EnforcementRemandProcedural Unconscionability
References
40
Case No. No. 04-1049
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2008

in Re Poly-America, L.P., Ind. and D/B/A Pol-Tex International, and Poly-America Gp, L.L.C.

This retaliatory-discharge case examines an employee's arbitration agreement, which includes provisions for splitting arbitration costs, limiting discovery, and eliminating punitive damages and reinstatement remedies available under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court must decide if these provisions are unconscionable and, if so, whether the contract's severability clause can preserve the arbitration right. The court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the arbitrator to assess the unconscionability of the fee-splitting and discovery-limitation provisions as applied. However, the provisions precluding remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act are found to be substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law. These unconscionable provisions are deemed severable, and the remainder of the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The petition for mandamus is conditionally granted.

Retaliatory DischargeArbitration AgreementUnconscionabilitySeverabilityWorkers' Compensation ActEmployment LawMandamusStatutory RightsFee-Splitting ProvisionDiscovery Limitations
References
78
Case No. 04-14-00829-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2014

Western Rim Property Services Inc. v. Paula Bazan-Garcia

This case involves an appeal by Western Rim Property Services, Inc. (WRPS) from a trial court order denying its motion to compel arbitration against former employee Paula Bazan-Garcia. Bazan-Garcia, an at-will employee, signed an Arbitration Agreement and an Employee Acknowledgement form, both incorporating AAA rules for dispute resolution. She later sued WRPS for wrongful termination, alleging workers' compensation retaliation and FMLA violations. WRPS moved to compel arbitration, but Bazan-Garcia opposed, arguing the agreement was unconscionable due to limitations on discovery, mandatory cost-sharing, and a specified arbitration venue in Dallas County. The trial court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable and denied WRPS's motion. WRPS argues that the trial court abused its discretion, contending that Bazan-Garcia clearly agreed to arbitrate, that the issue of unconscionability was delegated to the arbitrator by reference to AAA rules, and that, even if the court had jurisdiction, the agreement is not unconscionable or any problematic terms should be severed.

Employment LawArbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityWrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeFMLAWorkers CompensationContract LawTexas LawAAA Rules
References
36
Case No. 01-03-01055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2004

in Re Jonny Luna

The First District Court of Appeals of Texas reviewed a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Johnny Luna (Relator) against Poly-America, L.P. d/b/a Pol-Tex International and Poly-America GP, L.L.C. (collectively, Poly-America). Luna sought to overturn a trial court's order compelling arbitration in his wrongful discharge and retaliation claim under the Texas Labor Code. The core issue was the substantive unconscionability of an arbitration agreement between Luna and Poly-America. The court examined several provisions, including fee-splitting, limitations on remedies (punitive damages and reinstatement), discovery restrictions, and the scope of the agreement. While some provisions alone were not unconscionable, the court found that the high arbitration costs and the significant limitations on statutory remedies (reinstatement and punitive damages), when viewed cumulatively and against the strong legislative policy of the Worker's Compensation Act, rendered the arbitration agreement as a whole substantively unconscionable. Consequently, the court held that these integral unconscionable provisions could not be severed and conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementSubstantive UnconscionabilityEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeMandamus ReliefWorker's Compensation ActFee-splittingLimitation of RemediesWrongful DischargeRetaliation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Shelby Alan Freeman

Two groups of cotton farmers sued Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. for fraudulent inducement related to cooperative marketing contracts, seeking damages and statutory remedies. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, which the trial court denied, finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable. The court of appeals affirmed, citing the agreements' purported waiver of statutory rights and one-sided attorney's fees. This Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the limitation of statutory remedies was severable and the one-sided attorney's fee provision was not unconscionable per se. The case was remanded for the court of appeals to address other unconscionability arguments not previously considered.

ArbitrationFAAUnconscionabilityContract LawStatutory RemediesAttorney's FeesSeverabilityDTPACotton FarmersCooperative Marketing
References
21
Case No. 08-18-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

APC Home Health Services Inc. v. Lucina Martinez

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Lucina Martinez, an employee of APC Home Health Services, Inc., sued her employer for negligence after sustaining a workplace injury. APC, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, sought to enforce an arbitration agreement Martinez had signed. The appellate court found that APC successfully demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied. The court rejected Martinez's procedural unconscionability claims but remanded the issue of substantive unconscionability concerning a one-year time limit for claims to the trial court for further consideration. The case was reversed and remanded for arbitration under the agreement's terms, with the trial court to address the specific unconscionability point.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActEmployment LawWorkplace InjuryNegligenceUnconscionabilityContract EnforcementInterlocutory AppealTexas LawWorker's Compensation Non-Subscriber
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poly-America, L.P.

Johnny Luna, an employee of Poly-America, L.P., filed a retaliatory-discharge suit after sustaining a work injury and being fired. His employment contract included an arbitration agreement with provisions limiting remedies (no punitive damages or reinstatement), requiring fee-splitting, and limiting discovery. Luna challenged the agreement's unconscionability. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the remedy-limitation provisions were substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law but were severable due to a severability clause. The Court also held that the trial court properly left the assessment of fee-splitting and discovery-limitation unconscionability to the arbitrator, as applied during the arbitration process, and conditionally granted Poly-America's petition for mandamus to compel arbitration after severance of the voided remedy clauses.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ContractSeverability ClauseFee-SplittingDiscovery LimitationsPunitive DamagesReinstatement
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 124 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational