The Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has affirmed a TC order granting an employer’s motion for summary judgment in case in which an arbitrator determined that Plaintiff-employee had failed to adhere to the arbitration agreement’s requirement that she submit her personal injury claim to arbitration within the two-year statute of limitations.
Vanzandt v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC (No. 14-24-00662-CV; November 18, 2026) arose from a personal injury suit against Wal-Mart by a former employee, who claimed she sustained injuries in December 2018 while in the course and scope of employment. She alleged negligence and premises liability. Wal-Mart responded and filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, alleging that as a mandatory condition of her employment, Plaintiff had accepted the terms of Wal-Mart’s arbitration agreement. Plaintiff eventually agreed to terms of arbitration, and the trial court ordered both parties to attend arbitration in June 2021. Almost a year later Plaintiff initiated arbitration with the AAA, but it closed her file because the filing was not authorized. Two years later Plaintiff filed a claim with the Judicial Workplace Arbitrations, as specified by the arbitration agreement. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging Plaintiff’s claims was barred by the statute of limitations. Wal-Mart argued further that Plaintiff’s claims were void because she failed to adhere to the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator granted Wal-Mart’s motion. Wal-Mart filed a motion with the district court to lift the stay and dismiss the suit, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice McLaughlin, the court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff did not allege any grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the FAA, other than that the arbitrator exceeded his authority to grant Wal-Mart’s MSJ. Citing Vargas v. Rigid Glob. Bldgs., LLC, 654 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, pet. denied), the court observed that the arbitration agreement gave the arbitrator “clear authority to resolve any dispute regarding whether [Plaintiff’s] claims were ‘void or deemed waived’ for failure to initiate arbitration within the two-year statute of limitations. Whether the arbitrator erred in its interpretation of the applicable law and agreement provisions is irrelevant; the sole question of importance is whether the arbitrator’s decision was arguably an interpretation of the parties’ contract, and we conclude that it was.” Indeed, the court concluded, Plaintiff “never actually alleged or alleges that the arbitrator exceeded its power in any way.” Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court order dismissing the case.
TCJL Legal Intern Haden Knobloch researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
