Amy Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc. (082509)(Mercer County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey
244 N.J. 30 (2020)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

An arbitration agreement is enforceable under New Jersey contract law when an employer provides clear notice via email and training modules that continued employment for a specified period constitutes assent to the agreement, even if the employee is asked only to 'acknowledge' rather than 'agree' to the terms.

Facts:

Amy Skuse was employed as a flight attendant for Pfizer, Inc.
Pfizer sent emails to all employees announcing a new five-page Mutual Arbitration and Class Waiver Agreement.
The email included a link to a 'training module' consisting of four slides explaining the new policy.
The policy explicitly stated that if an employee continued working for Pfizer for sixty days after receiving the agreement, they would be deemed to have consented to it.
The final slide of the module required Skuse to click a box labeled 'CLICK HERE to acknowledge' to complete the training.
Skuse clicked the acknowledgement box and continued working for Pfizer for an additional thirteen months.
Skuse subsequently refused to receive a yellow fever vaccine required by Pfizer, citing her religious beliefs as a Buddhist.
Pfizer terminated Skuse's employment following her refusal to be vaccinated.

Procedural Posture:

Skuse sued Pfizer and individual defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Law Division) for violation of the Law Against Discrimination.
Pfizer moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration based on the agreement Skuse acknowledged.
The trial court granted Pfizer's motion, dismissed the complaint, and ordered the parties to arbitration.
Skuse appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision, finding the communications insufficient to establish assent.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Pfizer's petition for certification.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employee's electronic acknowledgement of an arbitration policy, combined with her continued employment after being notified that such conduct would be deemed acceptance, constitute a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate employment disputes?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Patterson

Yes, the electronic communications and the employee's subsequent conduct created a binding contract to arbitrate. The Court reasoned that New Jersey contract law permits assent to be manifested through conduct, such as continued employment, provided the offeror clearly states that such conduct constitutes acceptance. Pfizer's emails and the training module explicitly informed Skuse that staying employed for sixty days would be deemed assent to the arbitration agreement. Although the term 'acknowledge' can be ambiguous, in this specific context—where the text immediately preceding the button explained that the employee must agree as a condition of employment—it was sufficient to prove she understood she was waiving her rights. The Court also held that disseminating contracts via email and 'training modules' is a valid method of delivery in the modern workplace.

Concurring - Justice Albin

Yes, the totality of the evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff understood she was agreeing to arbitration. While agreeing with the outcome under current law, the concurrence expressed concern regarding the proliferation of industry-wide contracts of adhesion. Justice Albin warned that when employees are forced to waive their constitutional right to a jury trial as a condition of employment across entire industries, courts may eventually need to decide if such mandatory waivers act as unconscionable bars to the civil justice system.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Rabner

No, acknowledging receipt of a document is fundamentally different from agreeing to surrender constitutional rights. The dissent argued that a waiver of the right to a jury trial requires clear and unmistakable assent, which was absent here because Pfizer only asked Skuse to 'acknowledge receipt,' not to 'agree' to the terms. The dissent contended that an employer cannot unilaterally declare that an employee agrees simply by deeming their continued presence at work as consent, especially when the employer deliberately chose the ambiguous word 'acknowledge' instead of the clear word 'agree' in the electronic module.

Analysis:

This decision adapts traditional contract principles to the modern digital workplace. It confirms that 'clickwrap' agreements and 'training modules' are valid mechanisms for imposing arbitration agreements, provided the terms are explicitly stated. Legally, it lowers the strictness regarding the specific vocabulary of assent; courts will look to the context surrounding a button click (such as explanatory text) rather than just the label on the button itself. This ruling makes it easier for employers to enforce arbitration policies unilaterally by conditioning them on continued employment, shifting the burden to employees to quit if they disagree with new terms.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Amy Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc. (082509)(Mercer County & Statewide) (2020)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"