Supreme Court to Take Up Pair of Conflicting Arbitration Rulings
The New Jersey Supreme Court will decide whether the New Jersey Arbitration Act applies to employees who are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.
October 17, 2019 at 06:05 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in a pair of conflicting arbitration rulings over whether the New Jersey Arbitration Act applies to employees who are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.
In Arafa v. Health Express, the Appellate Division held in an unpublished June 5 decision that a mandatory arbitration agreement does not apply to wage-and-hour claims by truck drivers who deliver pharmaceuticals under §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which exempts certain workers from arbitration if their jobs involve foreign or interstate commerce.
The other case, Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, also concerns truck drivers bringing wage-and-hour claims. A different panel of the Appellate Division, in a published ruling on June 4, sent the case back to a trial court for a determination on whether plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce and, therefore, exempt from arbitration under §1 of the FAA. The panel in Colon also said that if the FAA doesn't apply, the New Jersey Arbitration Act applies and requires arbitration. The FAA exemption that applied to plaintiffs in the Arafa and Colon cases was spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court in a January ruling, New Prime v. Oliveira,
Ravi Sattiraju, a Princeton labor and employment lawyer, represents the plaintiffs in both Arafa and Colon. Sattiraju said he hopes the state Supreme Court will find that the New Jersey Arbitration Act does not apply if it is not specifically referenced in any agreement between workers and management.
"What we want the court to do is say that if you don't specifically bargain for an arbitration to be conducted under the New Jersey Arbitration Act, it's not going to be implied," Sattiraju said.
The ruling in Arafa concerns a class of truck drivers who deliver pharmaceutical products around New Jersey. The named plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor but he claimed his employer failed to pay him for all the hours he worked and withheld money from him. A panel consisting of Judges Carmen Messano, Douglas Fasciale and Lisa Rose, relying on New Prime, ruled the plaintiff's employment contract was exempt from the FAA and "all other arbitration issues are moot."
But in Colon, the panel of Judges Richard Hoffman, Karen Suter and Lisa Firko said that if the FAA did not apply, the New Jersey Arbitration Act requires arbitration of the plaintiff's claims.
The lawyer for the defendant in Colon, Richard McGovern of Genova Burns in Newark, finds it "curious" that the Supreme Court decided to hear his case without allowing it to return to the trial court for a determination on whether the truck driver plaintiffs are engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from arbitration under §1 of the FAA. McGovern said he believes the Appellate Division did the right thing and that the "meeting of the minds" between parties that has been held requisite to a valid arbitration agreement in New Jersey does not extend to which laws apply to the circumstances.
McGovern said he was heartened at the approach taken by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last month in another case disputing applicability of an arbitration agreement, Singh v. Uber.
In that case, the appeals court overturned an order enforcing an arbitration clause and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination on whether the plaintiff and class members were engaged in interstate commerce.
"It's curious that the court has decided to do this because an easy thing for the court to do was simply to have agreed with the Appellate Division that the lower court had to make a determination if [plaintiffs were engaged in] interstate commerce," McGovern said.
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 AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
$945K Settlement Reached in Fatal Crash After Truck Driver Fell Asleep at Wheel
3 minute read'That's Insane': Lawyers Weigh In on Fallout From Uber's User Agreement
7 minute readNY's Top Court Mulls Fate of Personal Injury Claims Against NJ Transit Corp.
Trending Stories
- 1'No Finer Work': New York City Council Confirms Next Corporation Counsel
- 2Here’s What Litigators Want For Christmas
- 3Reported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
- 4Frozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
- 5CooperSurgical Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
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