Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Pfizer’s mutual arbitration and class waiver agreement was valid and binding on Amy Skuse. The Court concluded that Pfizer’s agreement and related communications clearly informed employees that continued employment for sixty days would constitute assent and would waive the right to pursue covered employment claims in court. The Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint and compelling arbitration.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Pfizer's Mutual Arbitration and Class Waiver Agreement and related communications clearly and unmistakably informed Skuse that continued employment would constitute assent to arbitration and waiver of her right to pursue covered employment claims in court.
- Whether communicating the arbitration agreement by email and electronic materials invalidated the agreement.
- Whether Pfizer's use of the terms "training module," "training activity," and "acknowledge" prevented formation or enforcement of the arbitration agreement.
- Whether Skuse's Law Against Discrimination claims fell within the agreement's scope.
Holdings
- Pfizer's agreement and related communications clearly and unmistakably informed Skuse that continuing her employment for sixty days after receipt of the agreement would constitute assent to arbitration and waiver of the right to have covered employment claims decided by a court or jury.
- The use of email and linked electronic documents to communicate the arbitration agreement did not invalidate it.
- Although labeling the arbitration communications as a training module or training activity was a misnomer, that terminology did not invalidate the agreement in this case.
- Pfizer's use of the word "acknowledge" did not prevent assent because the surrounding language tied the acknowledgment to Skuse's obligation to agree to the arbitration agreement and expressly stated that continued employment would constitute consent, ratification, and acceptance.
Key quotations
“We conclude that Pfizer’s Agreement and related communications informed Skuse that if she remained a Pfizer employee more than sixty days from her receipt of that Agreement, she was deemed to assent to it.” (4)
“Pfizer thus informed employees, with the clarity that our waiver-of- rights law requires, that continued employment after the policy’s effective date would constitute acceptance of the Agreement’s terms.” (25)
“Accordingly, we hold that the Agreement was valid and binding, and we concur with the trial court’s decision to enforce it.” (40)
Factual background
Pfizer notified employees by email of a Mutual Arbitration and Class Waiver Agreement providing that continued employment for sixty days after receipt would constitute consent to arbitration and waiver of the right to have covered claims decided by a court or jury. The communications included the agreement, frequently asked questions, and a four-slide electronic module that instructed employees to click to acknowledge their obligation to agree to the agreement. Skuse received the communications, completed the module, continued working for approximately thirteen months, and was later terminated after refusing a yellow-fever vaccination because of religious and medical objections. She then brought claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Procedural history
Skuse sued Pfizer and individual defendants under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination after her employment was terminated following her religious objection to a yellow-fever vaccination. The trial court enforced Pfizer's Mutual Arbitration and Class Waiver Agreement, dismissed the complaint, and ordered arbitration. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Pfizer's electronic communications and training module did not establish knowing and unmistakable assent. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification, reversed the Appellate Division, and reinstated the trial court's judgment.
Remand instructions
None. The Appellate Division judgment was reversed and the trial court's judgment dismissing the complaint and ordering arbitration was reinstated.