Jaworski v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, 119 A.3d 939

Background

Plaintiffs Jaworski (61), Haggis (57) and Holewinski (55) were long‑term EY employees terminated in August 2012 and sued for age discrimination.
EY had a mandatory ADR program (Common Ground) first issued in 2002 and amended in 2006 and 2007; the program required mediation then binding arbitration for "Covered Disputes," including federal and state statutory and common‑law employment claims.
The 2006/2007 amendments emphasized that employees are bound by beginning or continuing employment after the effective date, and changed notice/fee/discovery terms; EY emailed revised program terms to employees, including the plaintiffs.
Jaworski and Haggis signed employment agreements (2007 and 2010) expressly agreeing to arbitrate; Holewinski had signed in 2004 but continued employment past the 2007 effective date.
Trial court initially denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration for lack of signed paperwork, then granted reconsideration after defendants produced signed agreements; the Appellate Division affirms enforcement of the 2007 program.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employees assented to 2007 Program without a contemporaneous signature	Holewinski: no signature to the 2007 amendment so cannot be bound	EY: Program unambiguously binds employees who continue employment after effective date; plaintiff continued working	Held: continued employment post‑effective date manifested assent; all three bound by 2007 Program
Whether the amendment/termination clause makes the Program illusory	Plaintiffs: EY’s unilateral modification right renders promise illusory and notice meaningless (must quit to avoid change)	EY: clause gives 30 days after second notice to preserve pre‑amendment rights by initiating mediation; changes not retroactive to disputes already in mediation	Held: Not illusory; clause construed to give employees meaningful window to preserve rights; avoids reading clause out
Whether termination claims are covered by "Covered Disputes" language	Plaintiffs: absence of words like "termination/discharge" excludes discharge claims	EY: Program explicitly lists statutory and common‑law employment claims including anti‑discrimination statutes	Held: Claims under LAD and similar statutes fall within Covered Disputes; language is clear and unambiguous
Whether fee‑sharing and arbitration procedures render waiver unconscionable or invalidate jury‑trial waiver	Plaintiffs: cost‑sharing chills statutory claims and Atalese/Delta Funding counsel stricter protections; Blann requires detailed jury waiver	EY: fee clause limits employee obligation to what law/arbitration rules permit; program clearly states waiver of court access; severability clause rescues any offending term	Held: Fee‑sharing not unconscionable as written (no requirement that employee bear all arbitrator costs); waiver of court access sufficiently clear; agreement enforceable

Key Cases Cited

Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 175 N.J. 293 (2003) (requiring concrete manifestation of assent to enforce waiver of court forum)
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014) (contractual waiver of rights must be clear and unmistakable)
Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174 (2013) (standard of review and strong preference to enforce arbitration agreements)
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (2002) (continued employment can constitute sufficient consideration)
Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28 (2006) (cost‑shifting that could force claimant to bear all arbitration costs is unconscionable)
Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124 (2001) (arbitration clause must clearly convey waiver of statutory/judicial remedies)
Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 330 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 2000) (continued employment and arbitration clauses analysis)
State v. Blann, 217 N.J. 517 (2014) (context on when waiver of jury trial is knowing and voluntary)