Arbitration Agreement In Application Form Is Enforceable

Maureen Martindale applied and was hired for the position of Benefits Administrator with Sandvik, Inc. in 1994. When she applied, Martindale had to complete and sign an "Application for Employment" that included an arbitration agreement that appeared on page four of the application. The arbitration agreement stated:

AS A CONDITION OF MY EMPLOYMENT, I AGREE TO WAIVE MY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATED TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH SANDVIK.
I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM WAIVING MY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY, AND FREE FROM DURESS OR COERCION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH A PERSON OF MY CHOOSING, INCLUDING AN ATTORNEY, BEFORE SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT.
I AGREE THAT ALL DISPUTES RELATING TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH SANDVIK OR TERMINATION THEREOF SHALL BE DECIDED BY AN ARBITRATOR THROUGH THE LABOR RELATIONS SECTION OF THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION.

Martindale also submitted a resume that set forth her educational background and extensive experience in the field of benefits administration.

Sandvik provided Martindale with the opportunity to ask questions about the application and the arbitration agreement and to consult a third party, including an attorney, before signing the documents. Although Martindale asked questions about the position, she did not ask any questions about the application. According to Martindale, Sandvik informed her that she was required to sign page four of the application; nonetheless, there is no claim that Martindale was coerced into signing the arbitration agreement. Similarly, Sandvik's Director of Human Resources, John Casciano, testified at a deposition that his practice, followed in respect of Martindale, was to ask an applicant to read the Application for Employment, review the document with the applicant, and offer to answer any questions. He said that applicants were permitted to take the application home to complete it, and then return it at a later date.

In January 1996, Martindale informed Sandvik that she was pregnant. Nearly two weeks before giving birth, Martindale began to experience medical problems related to her pregnancy. Consequently, Martindale obtained disability leave. After giving birth, Martindale requested and Sandvik granted family and medical leave to commence at the termination of Martindale's disability leave. However, prior to the termination of Martindale's disability leave and the commencement of her family and medical leave, Sandvik notified Martindale that her position was being eliminated due to a reorganization of Sandvik's holding company and its financial department. Sandvik ceased disability payments to Martindale in November 1996.

Martindale sued Sandvik alleging violation of the New Jersey Family Leave Act(FLA)and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Sandvik moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Martindale's complaint.

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the orders dismissing Martindale's complaint and compelling arbitration. The panel held that the arbitration agreement contained in the Application for Employment was valid and enforceable, and rejected the contention that the agreement was a contract of adhesion.

On appeal of the Appellate Division's order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that: (1) the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration and thus was valid; (2) the agreement was not a contract of adhesion; (3) the FLA and LAD claims were not exempt from arbitration; (4) Martindale waived her right to jury trial on the statutory claims when she signed the application; and (5) Martindale's waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Martindale v. Sandvick Inc.

Read the case