An employer might have many reasons for desiring to resolve a discrimination or sexual harassment case through arbitration instead of litigation in court. Generally, however, the employer does this because the employer believes that the employee will obtain a more favorable outcome through litigation than arbitration. To that end, many employers request or require their employees to sign an agreement consenting to arbitrate disputes that arise related to the employment relationship, including harm resulting from employment discrimination or sexual harassment. Even if you signed such an agreement, you may still have an opportunity to pursue your case in court instead of arbitration, if you can prove that part or all of your arbitration agreement was invalid or unenforceable. To learn more about your options, be sure to reach out to a knowledgeable New Jersey employment attorney.
D.M.’s case was a recent example of this type of dispute. D.M. accepted a job as a driver for a delivery service in June 2017. The driver signed several documents electronically, including one entitled “Arbitration Agreement.” Ten weeks after D.M.’s employment began, the employer fired her. A month later, the driver filed a Law Against Discrimination action against the employer. She alleged that one of the company’s managers made “sexually provocative comments about” her body and that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex and her sexual orientation.
Unsurprisingly, the employer asked the court to enter an order compelling both sides to arbitrate the dispute. When your employer does that, you may still be able to go to court. To do that, you have to persuade the court that the agreement you signed was not enforceable for one or more reasons. You can assert that there were certain types of fraud or duress, or you can argue that the agreement was unclear and ambiguous. In D.M.’s case, both the trial court and the Appellate Division declared the arbitration agreement to be valid and the employer entitled to demand arbitration, despite the employee’s arguments of a lack of clarity and presence of ambiguity.