New Jersey Appellate Court Holds That Failing To Identify The Proper Arbitration Forum In An Arbitration Agreement Does Not Put Employers In A JAM(S) As To Its Enforcement

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Ryan Carlson, Esq., April 15, 2021

Most arbitration agreements identify the specific arbitration forum where an employee must bring a dispute. The Judicial Mediation and Arbitration Services (JAMS) and the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are household names when it comes to arbitration and the two most common forums employers identify to hear disputes arising under their agreements. Employers often identify these forums in their agreements even though they may not be available to hear a dispute in the state the employer operates in or where it seeks to enforce their agreement. However, on April 8, 2021, the Appellate Division confirmed that doing so will not necessarily render an arbitration agreement unenforceable.

In Richardson v. Sky Zone, LLC, et al, a personal injury plaintiff was initially successful in challenging Sky Zone’s arbitration agreement because it identified JAMS as the arbitration forum to hear the plaintiff’s dispute despite that JAMS was not available in New Jersey where Sky Zone operated. The trial court in Burlington County determined that JAMS was an integral part of the parties’ arbitration agreement and it could not enforce the agreement if JAMS was not available.

The Appellate Division reversed. Relying on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 244 N.J. 119 (2020), which held that an agreement can be enforced without designating an arbitrator or process to select an arbitrator, the court declared that the unavailability of JAMS did not render the agreement unenforceable. The court did not find the lack of an available arbitration forum fatal because the agreement specifically referenced that it would be interpreted under New Jersey law and governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, both of which contain provisions allowing a court to appoint an arbitrator when an arbitrator cannot act pursuant to the terms of an arbitration agreement. Additionally, the agreement did not state the parties intended not to arbitrate their disputes if JAMS is unavailable.

This decision comes on the heels of several pro-arbitration decisions by state and federal courts in New Jersey. While it appears that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, we recommend that employers continually review and update their arbitration agreements to ensure they are enforceable and consistent with law.




SIGN UP NOW to receive time sensitive employment law alerts and invitations to complimentary informational webinars and seminars.

"*" indicates required fields

By clicking this button and submitting information to us, you will be submitting certain personally identifiable information, or information which used together with other information, can be used to identify you and/or identify information about you, to Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, PC (“NFC”). Such information may be used by NFC to contact or identify you. Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to, your [name, phone number, address and/or] email address. We collect this information for the purpose of providing services, identifying and communicating with you, responding to your requests/inquiries, and improving our services. We may use your personally identifiable Information to contact you with time sensitive employment law e-alerts, marketing or promotional offers, invitations to complimentary and informational webinars and seminars, and other information that may be of interest to you. However, by providing any of the foregoing information to you, we are not creating an attorney-client relationship between you and NFC: nor are we providing legal advice to you. You may opt out of receiving any, or all, of these communications from us by following the unsubscribe link in any email we send. However, this will not unsubscribe you from receiving future communications from us which are based upon an independent request, relationship or act by you.