In November 2020, Builders FirstSource - South Texas, L.P. hired Elizabeth Martinez Silva to work in its window-manufacturing facility in Houston. As a condition of employment she accepted an arbitration agreement that makes arbitration mandatory, covers claims "by or with respect to" her including claims by her children and claims against the employer's owners and successors, incorporates the American Arbitration Association employment rules (which give the arbitrator the power to decide arbitrability) and, according to respondents, gives the arbitrator the sole power to decide whether a claim falls within its scope.¹ Martinez and Jose Gustavo De Leon allege that Martinez lost their unborn son, Gustavo, because of tasks she performed at work.²

Martinez and De Leon, individually and as personal representative of Gustavo's estate, sued BFS Group LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc. (together, BFS) in the 157th District Court of Harris County for negligence, wrongful death and survival. BFS moved to compel arbitration and stay the case on May 24, 2024, and the trial court denied the motion on July 3, 2024. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Wilson, J., joined by Wise and Antú, JJ.) unanimously reversed. BFS Group LLC v. De Leon, No. 14-24-00548-CV, 2025 WL 2394091 (Tex. App.⁠—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 19, 2025, pet. filed); rehearing and en banc reconsideration were denied.¹ The petition for review was filed December 1, 2025 and the response March 11, 2026. The Court requested merits briefing on June 19, 2026; petitioners filed on July 20, respondents on September 9 and petitioners' reply on September 24, 2026 (Docket).

Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration and stay in an interlocutory appeal under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court requested and received full merits briefing, including a reply, but has not yet granted the petition.

1. Whether the court of appeals erred by compelling the parents to arbitrate where their survival and wrongful-death claims are entirely derivative of the unborn decedent's claims, the decedent was not a party or signatory, and no recognized exception allows binding a non-party. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred by holding the arbitrator, rather than the court, must decide arbitrability of the unborn decedent's claims without clear and unmistakable evidence of delegation.¹ BFS frames a single question: whether the court of appeals correctly concluded the trial court erred by denying the motion to compel arbitration and stay.²

Petitioners (Jose Gustavo De Leon and Elizabeth Martinez Silva): The court of appeals ignored this Court's rule in In re Labatt Food Service that arbitrability of derivative claims is evaluated from the decedent's "legal shoes": Section 71.003(a) conditions every claim on Gustavo's entitlement to sue had he been born alive, and Gustavo never agreed to anything. A parent cannot contract on behalf of a child who has not been conceived, direct-benefits estoppel does not apply, and the panel created a new exception for binding non-signatories with no limiting principle, undermining this Court's Jody James limitation. Whether an agreement was ever formed as to Gustavo is a question for the court; the Rent-A-Center severability principle cannot bind a non-signatory, and the agreement does not clearly and unmistakably delegate a non-signatory's disputes. Severability cannot supply an agreement that was never formed.¹

Respondents (BFS Group LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc.): Martinez agreed that the arbitrator exclusively decides arbitrability, and the parents challenge only the container agreement, not the delegation clause, which therefore severs out and is enforced. The agreement by its terms applies to Martinez's children; she exercised her parental power under Family Code section 151.001 to bind Gustavo and ratified it by continuing to work after becoming pregnant, and Labatt does not excuse her from her own promise to delegate. Alternatively, direct-benefits estoppel independently requires De Leon to arbitrate, an issue they ask the Court to reach if necessary. The court of appeals applied basic contract rules and the Federal Arbitration Act, public policy favors enforceability, and a stay is appropriate whether both petitioners or only Martinez arbitrate.²

Petitioners argue the petition raises questions of law important to the state's jurisprudence: whether a parent's employment arbitration agreement can bind all claims derivative of those an unborn child would have brought had he survived, whether a non-party minor can be compelled to arbitrate without a recognized exception to the rule that no one is forced to arbitrate without an agreement, and whether a trial court must send arbitrability to an arbitrator without clear and unmistakable evidence of that intent.¹ BFS disagrees that the appeal presents a question important to the jurisprudence of the state.²

None