Supreme Court Expands Enforceability of Arbitration Policies in New Jersey Employment Law Decision
The New Jersey Supreme Court once again expanded the enforceability of arbitration agreements under New Jersey employment law. In its opinion in Skuse vs. Pfizer, Inc., the Court left in place the requirements necessary for agreements to arbitrate employee/employer disputes
under New Jersey employment law, but in its application let the exceptions swallow the rule.
Pfizer’s Arbitration Agreement
Pfizer adopted an arbitration “agreement” – actually, more of a policy. It was not a contract signed by an employee and Pfizer. Rather, the employee was deemed to have agreed to arbitrate employment disputes if she continued working for Pfizer for sixty days after the policy’s effective date. Employees were notified by email (to over 28,000 employees) about the policy and given a deadline to “acknowledge” having received it. Whether the employees did or did not acknowledge receipt, they would be deemed to have “agreed” to the policy by their continued employment. There was a training module with four slides which purported to explain the policy; one of the slides gave the employees the option to print a copy, but they were not given a copy by Pfizer; another thanked the employee for taking the training. In the FAQ section of the training module employees were told that if they did not agree they would be fired.
New Jersey Lawyers Blog


is to have a well-written contract.
but not including any order requiring the taking of emergency measures….” This is an important tool under New Jersey
agreed to and then not get paid, despite the fact that they met all the project’s specifications and did a great job. It is a well-founded worry. Companies or people who don’t want to pay devise many different schemes, sometimes claiming defects with the work, delay damages, failure to do proper paperwork, the excuses are as varied as is human imagination. To be clear, sometimes these claims are legitimate, but sometimes they are not, and good contractors need to get paid to do the work and to stay in business.
into law, the CARES Act has been subject to various interpretations, pitfalls, and continuously-evolving government guidance.
struggling with economic hardships as a result of widespread closures and stay-at-home orders. One major part of these governmental actions includes the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (also known as the “CARES Act”) on April 2, 2020.
Naturally, this has led to a spike in bankruptcy filings. However, many small businesses have held out hope for federal stimulus aid before deciding on whether bankruptcy is the right option for them.
Since the COV-19 outbreak began, more than 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment. The increase in unemployment filings have been the result of businesses of all sizes being forced to shut down entirely or significantly limit their operations. As a result, many people, both employers and employees, are seeing less income or no income at all while still being expected to pay their monthly payments such as rent, mortgage, car loan, credit card bills, and insurance. These financial obligations are especially devastating for people and businesses that were already having trouble making those monthly payments prior to the COV-19 outbreak.