Jesus Yanez v. Dish Network, LLC, etc.

El Paso, Texas civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on an employment discrimination theory.



In 2001, EchoStar Communications Corporation ("EchoStar”) hired

Appellant Jesus Yanez as a customer service representative at its El Paso,

Texas location. As part of his day one onboarding, Yanez allegedly signed an

arbitration agreement purporting to bind Yanez, EchoStar, and all EchoStar

affiliates to arbitrate disputes related to Yanez's "application for

employment, employment and/or termination of employment.” The

agreement defined "affiliates” as those "companies controlling, controlled

by or under common control with, EchoStar Communications Corporation.”

Starting in 2003, Yanez worked at a call center in Harlingen, earning a series

of promotions and ultimately being transferred back to El Paso in 2014, where

he remained until he was terminated in 2018.

During Yanez's employment, EchoStar underwent several corporate

changes. In 2007, EchoStar filed a Definitive Information Statement with the

SEC noting it was changing its name to DISH Network Corporation. By the

next year, DISH Network Corporation had moved some of its assets into a

new, separately traded company, EchoStar Corporation, but retained its

customer service call centers. Both Appellees are wholly owned subsidiaries

of DISH Network Corporation.

After his termination, Yanez filed discrimination claims with the

Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division and the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission. Both issued Yanez right to sue

letters. Yanez then sued in Texas state court, alleging age and nationality

discrimination. Appellees subsequently removed the case to federal court

and filed a motion to compel arbitration. A magistrate judge granted the

motion to compel arbitration over Yanez's opposition, stayed the case

pending arbitration, and and transferred it to the Western District of Texas, El

Paso division, in line with the arbitration agreement's stipulation that arbitration be conducted in El Paso. The district court affirmed the order over

Yanez's objection.

Once in the Western District, the arbitration proceeded slowly, and

the district court issued the parties three show cause notices requiring

updates. Frustrated with the parties' "amorphous language” in a prior joint

status update, the court then issued notice to the parties requiring that they

file a status report every 90 days. The parties successfully met the update

deadlines twice but then failed to file a required update. Two days later, the

district court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice. Yanez then

sought to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e).

Motion to dismiss granted.



The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the district court’s judgment compelling arbitration, REVERSED the district court’s dismissal of the case, and REMANDED the case.