Castillo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
EDMUNDO CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Case No. 7:25-CV-00252
CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
From 2022 to 2024, Plaintiff Edmund Castillo was a pharmacy technician at a CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. (“CVS”) store in the Edinburg area. During that time, he was diagnosed
with Level 1 Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”). Castillo alleges that when he informed
CVS of this diagnosis, CVS began to discriminate against him. He claims that his hours
were cut and that he was subjected to a hostile-work environment. Despite Castillo’s
attempts to resolve his disputes with CVS, the discrimination continued. Rather than
continue to face the alleged hostile-work environment, Castillo resigned from his position
at CVS and brought this lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Before the Court is CVS’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation. (Dkt.
No. 10). Castillo has not filed a response. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
CVS’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation. (Id.).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 20, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

2
I. BACKGROUND1
A. CASTILLO’S EMPLOYMENT
In September 2022, Castillo was hired as a pharmacy technician at a CVS store in
Edinburg, Texas. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2). In that position, Castillo worked under the
supervision of CVS pharmacy management and the regional pharmacy district leader.
(Id.). Castillo has been diagnosed with Level 1 ASD. (Id. at 2–3). Despite this diagnosis,
Castillo alleges that he was fully capable of performing his job functions without any
accommodation. (Id. at 3).
After disclosing the diagnosis to his direct supervisor in November 2022, Castillo
claims he began to suffer discrimination. (Id.). Prior to November 2022, Castillo was
scheduled to work an average of 30–40 hours a week. (Id.). After, Castillo’s hours were
reduced to 0–5 hours a week. (Id.). Less experienced employees were also given full-
time schedules during this period. (Id.).
Castillo requested reinstatement of his regular hours and fair shift assignments.
(Id.). CVS refused and declined to engage in the “interactive process as required by law.”
(Id.). Following these requests Castillo was subjected to a hostile-work environment.
(Id.). This hostile-work environment included ridicule by coworkers, accusations of
insubordination for asking questions, and unjustified disciplinary action. (Id.). Castillo
filed a formal complaint with CVS’s Human Resources department in March 2023. (Id.).
1 A motion to compel arbitration is generally treated as a motion to dismiss. Vine v. PLS
Fin. Servs., Inc., 689 F.App’x 800, 802 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Suburban Leisure Ctr., Inc. v. AMF
Bowling Prods., Inc., 468 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s
well-pleaded facts related to the underlying dispute as true. Vine, 689 F.App’x at 802.
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

3
When this failed to resolve Castillo’s complaint and the hostile work environment,
Castillo resigned from his position on March 24, 2024. (Id.).
B. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
Before beginning his job with CVS, Castillo executed a written CVS Health
Arbitration Agreement (the “Agreement”). (Dkt. No. 10-1 at 7–8). The Agreement
provides:
Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims: Under this
Agreement, [Castillo] and CVS agree that any dispute
between [Castillo] and CVS that is covered by this Agreement
(“Covered Claims”) will be decided by a single arbitrator
through final and binding arbitration only and will not be
decided by a court or jury or any other forum, except as
otherwise provided in this Agreement.
(Id. at 7). The Agreement goes on to explain the claims are subject to arbitration:
Claims Covered by this Agreement: Except as otherwise
stated in this Agreement, Covered Claims are any and all
claims, disputes or controversies . . . that [Castillo] may have,
now or in the future, against CVS . . . arising out of or related
to [Castillo’s] employment with CVS or the termination of
[Castillo’s] employment. Covered Claims include but are not
limited to disputes regarding . . . hours of work, . . .
harassment, discrimination, retaliation and termination
arising under the . . . Americans with Disabilities Act.
(Id.).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). “They possess
only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded
by judicial decree.” Id. (citations omitted). Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”),
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

4
the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited when parties have agreed in writing to
arbitrate. See 9 U.S.C. § 4 (“[U]pon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for
arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order
directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.”).
An arbitration agreement’s enforcement involves two steps. Kubala v. Supreme
Prod. Services, Inc., 830 F.3d 199, 201 (5th Cir. 2016). First, a court must determine whether
the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate the dispute. Id. Second, a court must
determine whether the parties’ dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Id.; see also Will-Drill Res., Inc. v. Samson Res. Co., 352 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 2003).
In the first step, the party moving to compel arbitration must prove the existence
of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. Grant v. Houser, 469
F.App’x 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2012). In determining whether parties agreed to arbitrate,
courts “apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” First
Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1924, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995).
Once “competent evidence showing the formation of an agreement to arbitrate has been
presented,” the party resisting arbitration must “produce some contrary evidence to put
the matter ‘in issue.’” Gallagher v. Vokey, 860 F.App’x 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting 9
U.S.C. § 4) (emphasis in original). To put the arbitration agreement “in issue,” 9 U.S.C.
§ 4, the resisting party must (1) unequivocally deny that he agreed to arbitrate and
(2) produce some evidence to support this assertion, Gallagher, 860 F.App’x at 357.
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

5
In the second step, courts adhere to principles of contract interpretation and
“look[] to the arbitration clause itself” to determine whether the parties’ dispute falls
within the scope of the arbitration agreement. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v.
Ironshore Specialty Ins., 921 F.3d 522, 531 (5th Cir. 2019).
“When a federal court finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration, and a party has
requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the court does not have
discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration.”
Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475–76, 144 S.Ct. 1173, 1176, 218 L.Ed.2d 494 (2024).
III. DISCUSSION
CVS presents competent evidence showing the existence of an arbitration
agreement, (Dkt. No. 10-1 at 7–8), carrying its burden to prove its existence by a
preponderance of the evidence, Grant, 469 F.App’x at 315. Castillo did not respond to
CVS’s Motion, and in doing so, failed to unequivocally deny that he agreed to arbitrate
or provide any evidence to the contrary. Gallagher, 860 F.App’x at 357–58. What’s more,
the Agreement encompasses nearly all disputes involving Campbell’s employment or
termination—a wide net that captures all of the asserted claims here. As such, the Court
is required to compel arbitration, see Halliburton, 921 F.3d at 531, and stay the proceedings
pending arbitration, see Smith, 601 U.S. at 475–76, 144 S.Ct. at 1176.
A. MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
CVS has carried its burden to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate
with Castillo. See Grant, 469 F.App’x at 315. Here, CVS offered several pieces of evidence
to support the existence of an arbitration agreement with Castillo: (1) the CVS Health
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

6
Arbitration Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated September 7, 2022, and signed by
Castillo, (Dkt. No. 10-1 at 7–8); and (2) an uncontroverted affidavit by a custodian of
records for CVS, (id. at 2–5); see Gallagher, 860 F.App’x at 358 (“[A]n uncontroverted
affidavit, even when supplied by a party or a party’s employee, can establish the existence
of an agreement to arbitrate.” (citing Banks v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., 435 F.3d 538,
540–41 (5th Cir. 2005))).
Because “competent evidence showing the formation of an agreement to arbitrate
has been presented,” Castillo must “produce some contrary evidence to put the matter ‘in
issue.’” Gallagher, 860 F.App’x at 358 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4) (emphasis in original). To
satisfy the some-evidence standard, Castillo must (1) unequivocally deny that he agreed
to arbitrate and (2) produce some evidence to support this assertion. Id. at 357. Castillo
has done neither. In fact, he has failed to respond at all. The Court finds that CVS has
established that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate. See Kubala, 830 F.3d at
201.
Further, the dispute here falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The
Agreement requires arbitration for essentially all claims arising out of an employee’s
employment or termination with CVS, including claims involving harassment and hours
worked. (Dkt. No. 10-1 at 7). Castillo’s employment-discrimination claim under the
ADA concerns Castillo’s employment at CVS and the harassment he alleges he suffered.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 4–5). Thus, his claim falls squarely within the Agreement.2 See Gillon v.
2 Even if it were a closer call, any doubts about the scope of arbitrable issues should be
resolved in favor of arbitration. Klein v. Nabors Drilling USA LP, 710 F.3d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 2013).
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

7
UCB Inc., 757 F.Supp.3d 759, 765 (S.D. Tex. 2024). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
CVS’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Dkt. No. 10).
B. MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION
Asserting that Castillo’s ADA claim is subject to arbitration, CVS argues that this
action should be stayed during arbitration. (Dkt. No. 10 at 9). “The FAA instructs courts
to stay an action on application of one of the parties if the court determines that the parties
have agreed to arbitrate a claim brought before it and the issue is in fact arbitrable.” CMA
CGM, S.A. v. GCC Supply & Trading LLC, 793 F.Supp.3d 866, 882 (S.D. Tex. 2025) (citing 9
U.S.C. § 3); see also Smith, 601 U.S. at 478–79, 144 S.Ct. at 1178 (holding “[w]hen a district
court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay
pending arbitration, § 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding”). The Court
therefore GRANTS CVS’s Motion to Stay Litigation. (Dkt. No. 10).
IV. CONCLUSION
In short, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Litigation. (Dkt. No. 10). This Civil Action is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED without prejudice in favor of arbitral proceedings. This action may be
reopened upon a motion by any Party. The Parties are ORDERED to file a joint status
report informing the Court about the status in 180 days.
It is SO ORDERED.
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

8
Signed on November 20, 2025.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00252 Document 13 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 8 of 8