Disability Advocate Agency's Suit Against Ex-Employee Headed to Arbitration
"If the New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet declared a consumer contract to be an absolute prerequisite to the application of the 'Atalese' 'explicit waiver' rule, it has been elevated to the status of a very critical factor," Judge Kevin McNulty said.
February 08, 2019 at 04:07 PM
4 minute read
In a federal case that was stayed pending a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that came last month, a judgehas ruled that a dispute between a disability advocate agency and a former employee accused of breach of contract must be resolved through arbitration.
U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey on Feb. 6 granted GAR Disability Advocate's motion to compel arbitration in its case against Pamela Taylor.
“If the New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet declared a consumer contract to be an absolute prerequisite to the application of the Atalese 'explicit waiver' rule, it has been elevated to the status of a very critical factor,” McNulty said, adding that “the parties here, are not 'average member[s] of the public.'”
GAR claimed that Taylor breached the nondisclosure, noncompete, and nondisparagement clauses of its employment agreement with her when she allegedly failed to assign new cases and clients to GAR, and held herself out as the primary representative to clients, instead of GAR, according to McNulty.
Taylor was terminated, McNulty said, though it was disputed whether the termination was with or without cause. GAR filed suit after Taylor allegedly sent emails to GAR, threatening to take employees and claimants, and to release confidential information. She then filed a counterclaim, alleging she was not paid her salary, reasonable expenses, or compensation for unused vacation time as laid out in the employment agreement. GAR then filed a motion to compel arbitration of the counterclaim.
Taylor claimed that the arbitration clause is not valid under New Jersey law because it lacked an explicit waiver-of-rights provision, as detailed in the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services.
The GAR case against Taylor was stayed pending the high court's ruling in Kernahan v. Home Warranty Administrator of Florida, which came on Jan. 10.
In its Kernahan decision, the high court “stopped short of a categorical ruling that the rule in Atalese applies only to consumer contracts,” McNulty said. “Still, it relied very heavily on the 'consumer fraud' aspect of Atalese.”
McNulty said that because Taylor was a sophisticated litigant who sold her business to GAR before becoming its employee, she understood the right to trial was being waived by signing the agreement.
“ In short, this was very far from being a 'setting[] where a person would not be presumed to understand' that the right to a civil trial was being waived,” McNulty said. “Presented with the issue, I think that the New Jersey Supreme Court would hold that the more exacting standard of Atalese does not apply here.
“Most persuasive in this context are cases compelling arbitration where the clause at issue, while not explicitly waiving a jury right, is nonetheless held enforceable because the parties were involved in sophisticated negotiations, and were not average consumers confronted with an adhesion contract,” McNulty said.
GAR's attorney, Eli Rogers of Dreifuss Bonacci & Parker said in an email, “The record evidence would not have supported a finding that the underlying transaction was anything but commercial in nature. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decisions in Atalese and Kernahan are rooted in a consumer protection policy interest. Judge McNulty's opinion articulated that context of the Atalese line, and underscored that the exception created by the state supreme court does not apply “across the board” to every contractual arbitration clause.”
Taylor's attorney, Michael Orozco of Price, Meese, Shulman & D'Arminio, did not respond to a request for 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 AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
- 2Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 3'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 4Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 5A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
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