Leodori v. Cigna Corp.
814 A.2d 1098, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1103, 175 N.J. 293 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employee to waive their statutory right to a jury trial in favor of arbitration, they must provide an explicit, affirmative agreement that unmistakably reflects their assent; continued employment after receiving a handbook containing an arbitration policy is insufficient to constitute such a waiver.
Facts:
- Paul Leodori began working as an in-house attorney for Insurance Company of North America (INA) in June 1995.
- In August 1996, and again in a handbook in June 1998, INA distributed an arbitration policy to all employees, including Leodori.
- Leodori signed acknowledgment forms stating he had 'received' the handbooks, but these forms also stated the handbooks were not employment contracts.
- In July 1998, the company distributed a new handbook, 'You and CIGNA,' which contained a detailed arbitration policy and was accompanied by a separate form titled 'Employee Handbook Receipt and Agreement.'
- This separate Agreement form explicitly stated that by accepting employment, the employee agreed to resolve all legal claims through final and binding arbitration; Leodori never signed this form.
- In August 1998, the company sent an e-mail to employees acknowledging that its handbook distribution process was confusing and was 'removing the link between signing the Handbook receipt and future compensation and benefits actions.'
- Leodori reported what he believed to be improper or illegal actions by company employees to his superiors.
- Following an internal investigation that found his claims unsupported, Leodori's employment was terminated in May 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Leodori filed a complaint in the Law Division (New Jersey's trial court of general jurisdiction) against his former employer alleging a violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding a binding arbitration agreement existed.
- Leodori filed a second, similar complaint, which the trial court also dismissed.
- Leodori, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of his first complaint to the Appellate Division (New Jersey's intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, holding that the arbitration waiver was not enforceable against Leodori.
- The defendant, as petitioner, was granted certification by the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the state's highest court).
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 continued employment after receiving a handbook containing an arbitration policy constitute a clear and unambiguous agreement to waive their statutory right to a jury trial, especially when the employer provided a separate signature form for that policy which the employee did not sign?
Opinions:
Majority - Verniero, J.
No. An employee's continued employment after receiving a handbook with an arbitration policy does not constitute a clear and unambiguous agreement to waive their statutory rights, especially when a separate signature form for that policy was provided but left unsigned. A valid waiver of statutory rights requires an explicit, affirmative agreement that unmistakably reflects the employee's assent. The court reasoned that a waiver of statutory rights must be 'clearly and unmistakably established.' The implied-contract doctrine from Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, which can bind employers to promises in handbooks, does not apply in reverse to bind employees to a waiver of rights. Furthermore, the company's own documents, specifically the unsigned 'Agreement' form, contemplated a signature as the method of acceptance. When an offeror specifies a mode of acceptance, the offeree must comply for a contract to be formed. Leodori's failure to sign, combined with the company's confusing e-mail communication about the handbook process, demonstrates a lack of mutual assent to the arbitration provision.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high standard for enforcing arbitration agreements contained in employee handbooks in New Jersey. It establishes that implied consent, such as continued employment, is insufficient to waive an employee's fundamental statutory right to a jury trial. The ruling places a clear burden on employers to obtain an explicit, affirmative manifestation of assent, such as a signature on a document that specifically references the arbitration agreement. By distinguishing the Woolley implied-contract doctrine, the court prevents employers from using a principle designed to protect employees as a tool to limit their rights, thereby reinforcing the knowing and voluntary standard for waiving statutory remedies.
