## Facts

- Richard Parsons worked for Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. from June 2013 to October 2013 under an employment agreement requiring disputes to be “finally and conclusively resolved through arbitration.”
- On December 3, 2013, Parsons sued in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, alleging late payment of final wages under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and seeking class treatment.
- After suit was filed, Halliburton requested (and received) extensions of time to respond, stating it was investigating whether other employees had similar wage-payment issues and offering to voluntarily provide related information.
- In May 2014, Parsons’s counsel asked about the promised information; Halliburton’s new counsel responded that she needed time to become familiar with the matter.
- In July 2014, roughly seven months after the complaint, Halliburton made its first court filing: a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action.
- Parsons argued Halliburton waived arbitration through delay and litigation-related conduct (extensions and informal information discussions).

## Issues

1. Whether Halliburton waived its contractual right to arbitration by waiting about seven months to move to compel arbitration and engaging in pre-answer communications concerning extensions and informal information exchange.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the order compelling arbitration and dismissing the lawsuit.
- The court held Halliburton did not waive its contractual arbitration right.
- Halliburton’s delay and informal communications were not “active participation” in litigation and were not clearly inconsistent with insisting on arbitration.
- The court stated that, under West Virginia waiver doctrine, a party asserting waiver need not prove prejudice or detrimental reliance as an element of waiver.

## Legal Principles

- Waiver under West Virginia contract law requires evidence of an intentional relinquishment of a known right, shown by express statements or conduct clearly inconsistent with exercising the right.
- Estoppel is distinct from waiver and generally requires reasonable reliance and resulting detriment based on misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
- For waiver of a contractual arbitration right, the central inquiry is intent to relinquish and conduct inconsistent with arbitration; a separate showing of prejudice is not required.
- Mere delay in moving to compel arbitration, without substantive use of the judicial process (e.g., merits pleadings, formal discovery, or substantive motions), ordinarily does not establish waiver.

## Conclusion

West Virginia enforced the arbitration agreement because Halliburton’s seven-month delay and pre-answer extension requests and informal investigatory communications did not clearly show an intentional abandonment of arbitration or meaningful participation in court litigation.


Parsons v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 785 S.E.2d 844 (W. Va. 2016)