DEY v. INNODATA, INC., 2:18-cv-00978

Plaintiff Anindo Dey, a former employee of Innodata Inc., brought multiple claims in federal court, including Title VII discrimination/retaliation and common law retaliatory discharge.
The case was transferred from the Northern District of Illinois to the District of New Jersey based on a forum selection clause in a confidentiality agreement Dey signed with Innodata.
Several claims were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving only a Title VII hostile work environment claim, an Illinois Whistleblower Act claim, and a common law retaliatory discharge claim.
Defendant moved to strike Dey’s jury demand, arguing that the confidentiality agreement included a jury trial waiver.
The relevant agreement contained a jury waiver limited to disputes "arising out of or in connection with" the confidentiality agreement, not broadly to all employment-related claims.
The court was tasked with determining whether the surviving claims fell within the scope of the waiver and, if so, whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether the jury waiver provision covers the surviving claims	Dey argues waiver only applies to disputes arising from the confidentiality agreement, not general employment or discrimination claims	Innodata asserts all employment-related claims, including discrimination and retaliation, are covered since they reference employment context	Court holds waiver does not cover discrimination/retaliation claims; too narrow in scope
Whether plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to jury trial	Dey asserts no equal bargaining power and lacked sophistication	Innodata argues Dey was sophisticated and provision was conspicuous	Court finds it unnecessary to resolve because waiver not applicable
Proper interpretation of the agreement’s scope	Dey: Contract limited to confidentiality and not all employment issues	Innodata: Provisions on discrimination internal reporting make waiver applicable	Court sides with Dey, finding discrimination claims not connected to agreement’s subject matter
Burden of proof for enforcing the waiver	Dey: Innodata has burden and failed to meet it	Innodata: Plaintiff’s acts and contract history show valid waiver	Court: Defendant did not meet burden to establish waiver’s scope applies

Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389 (1937) (establishes the high standard for waiver of a jury trial right — courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver)
Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) (waiver of constitutional rights, including jury trial, must be knowing and voluntary)
Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 502 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2007) (federal law applies to validity of contract-based jury trial waivers)