Arbitration Bid Blocked in Suit Saying Morgan Stanley Wrongfully Terminated Recovering Addict
A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, has denied Morgan Stanley's motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful termination suit, finding room for debate over whether the company's email delivery of the mandatory arbitration policy to employees constitutes notice and assent.
March 02, 2018 at 01:49 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, has denied Morgan Stanley's motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful termination suit, finding room for debate over whether the company's email delivery of the mandatory arbitration policy to employees constitutes notice and assent.
The company sent an email to all employees in September 2015 describing a new policy that subjected employment disputes to mandatory arbitration. The company says it sent a copy to the plaintiff, Craig Schmell, who was then a senior vice president in Morgan Stanley's Red Bank, New Jersey, office, but Schmell said he did not recall seeing the message.
Schmell, who joined the company in 2006, began working on a self-help book in 2015. Titled “The Uninvited: How I Crashed My Way into Finding Myself,” the book was written with a co-author, Pulitzer Prize winner Ellis Henican.
In the book, Schmell detailed past struggles with alcohol and drugs as well as antics such as smoking marijuana inside the Kremlin, getting backstage access during the Grammy awards and talking his way into a ride in Ronald Reagan's presidential motorcade.
When he provided a draft of the manuscript to his superiors in June 2017, they allegedly threatened to fire him and requested edits in exchange for his continued employment.
To appease his employer, Schmell agreed to the edits. He agreed to remove any mention of Morgan Stanley, of his use of what were termed “hard” drugs and his detention by police at age 16.
However, the company later decided that the edits were insufficient and told Schmell he would be fired if the book were published, since it creates a reputational risk, the suit claims. On Aug. 8, 2017, he was told he would be terminated if the book was published.
He was fired on Oct. 31, 2017, and his suit claimed his firing constituted discrimination based on his status as a recovering addict, and history of past drug use.
Morgan Stanley, citing New Jersey case law, argued Schmell's continued employment after receiving the policy constitutes acceptance of the arbitration term. U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson said that, given the defendant's inclusion of an opt-out procedure, Schmell appeared to have assented by continuing to work for the company after the arbitration policy was announced. However, Thompson said, unlike the New Jersey case law cited by Morgan Stanley, in the present case there was an underlying dispute about whether Schmell received notice of the policy.
Schmell certified that he had no recollection of opening or receiving the email announcing the arbitration policy, although Morgan Stanley presented evidence that he was working on the day the message was sent and that he was accessing his email. The company maintained that such evidence was adequate.
“Plaintiff's certification presents a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was on notice of the agreement to arbitrate such that there was a meeting of the minds and he could mutually assent to the terms of the CARE program,” Thompson said. “And without adequate notice, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged assent through continued employment without opt-out was knowing and voluntary. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is bound to arbitrate pursuant to this agreement,” Thompson said.
Joshua Bauchner of Ansell, Grimm & Aaron in Woodland Park, who represents Schmell, said email dissemination of arbitration agreements has been held valid under New Jersey law, but only where there was a mechanism for affirmative manifestation of assent or where the employee did not dispute receiving the notice.
Bauchner said the decision's guidance on the validity of email delivery of arbitration notice to employees “is going to have some far-reaching impact because a lot of employers are doing this now.”
The lawyers for Morgan Stanley, Kerrie Heslin and Ryan Carlson of Nukk-Freeman & Cerra in Chatham, New Jersey, did not return calls seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All2 Sex Abuse Victims Settle Consolidated Case Against School District for $6M
4 minute readNew Jersey Supreme Court Considers Arbitrator's Authority to Demote School Administrator
5 minute readFailure to Communicate: Why Better Tech Doesn't Mean Better Communication
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250