KEVIN DUGAN VS. BEST BUY CO., INC.(L-1946-16, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1897-16T4

Kevin Dugan, a long‑time Best Buy general manager, completed an eLearning module on February 4, 2016 presenting Best Buy's new arbitration policy effective March 15, 2016; the module had four screens and an "I acknowledge" checkbox.
Dugan clicked the acknowledgement box without reading the policy; he did not sign any separate agreement.
Dugan remained employed for three weeks after the policy's effective date and was terminated on April 5, 2016.
He sued Best Buy for age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; Best Buy moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss.
The trial court granted Best Buy's motion; the Appellate Division reversed, holding Dugan did not assent to the arbitration policy and therefore no arbitration agreement was formed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed (assent)	Dugan did not agree to be bound; clicking acknowledgement only showed receipt, not assent	Best Buy argued the eLearning acknowledgement, notice, and continued employment manifested assent	Reversed — no valid agreement: the acknowledgement box and brief continued employment did not show the explicit, affirmative assent required for waiving court access
Whether continued employment after effective date manifested assent	Continued employment for three weeks does not indicate explicit assent	Continued employment after effective date can indicate assent (relying on Jaworski)	Rejected here: short duration and wording of Best Buy’s materials did not unambiguously bind employees by mere continued employment; court did not reach scope of arbitration

Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174 (standard of review for motions to compel arbitration)
Kieffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J. 213 (arbitration contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., 219 N.J. 430 (arbitration clauses must clearly and unambiguously show waiver of court access)
Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 175 N.J. 293 (employee waiver requires explicit, affirmative agreement)
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (FAA preemption and state contract principles; discussion of consideration and adhesion concerns)
Caspi v. Microsoft Network, LLC, 323 N.J. Super. 118 (electronic clickboxes can indicate assent in some contexts)
Morgan v. Raymours Furniture Co., 443 N.J. Super. 338 (receipt/understanding acknowledgments do not equal assent to waivers)
Jaworski v. Ernst & Young U.S., 441 N.J. Super. 464 (continued employment can, in some circumstances, manifest assent when policy language is unambiguous)