KUASHEMA RILEY VS. RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN(L-4100-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2272-16T1

Riley was hired by Raymour & Flanigan (R&F) as a salesperson and alleged prolonged racial and sexual harassment by manager Chunawala and others, and retaliation after she complained and was terminated.
Riley filed LAD claims in Law Division for hostile work environment and retaliatory termination.
R&F moved to compel arbitration under an Employee Arbitration Program (EAP) Riley had signed (Associate's Agreement & Consent), invoking the Federal Arbitration Act.
Riley opposed, arguing the EAP was unenforceable because it required claimants to pay arbitration filing fees, was signed under duress, and was incomprehensible; she also claimed funding of arbitration by R&F would bias the arbitrator.
Trial court granted defendants’ motion, compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint without prejudice; Riley appealed.
Appellate division affirmed, holding the EAP enforceable and rejecting unconscionability, duress, and ambiguity arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the EAP is unconscionable because it requires the claimant to pay arbitration filing fees	Riley: filing fees (AAA $200 or JAMS $1,200) would deter her and make arbitration inaccessible, violating public policy	R&F: fees comparable to court costs; arbitrator may reallocate fees; LAD permits fee-shifting	EAP not unconscionable; fee requirement alone does not invalidate arbitration agreement
Whether Riley signed the EAP under duress	Riley: she feared losing her job if she refused, so assent was coerced	R&F: ordinary economic pressure to keep a job is not wrongful duress; employment is adequate consideration	No duress; economic pressure of employment, without more, insufficient to avoid arbitration
Whether the EAP is unenforceable because it is ambiguous or incomprehensible	Riley: terms are complex and she did not fully understand the agreement	R&F: EAP plainly waives court/jury and explains arbitration process; written agreement binding absent fraud	EAP sufficiently clear; courts presume a signatory understands written contract; agreement enforced
Whether ordering R&F to fund arbitration biases the arbitrator; and whether lack of oral argument requires reversal	Riley: defendant-funded arbitration would bias the process; procedural error for no oral argument	R&F: trial court’s order addressed fee allocation; no prejudicial procedural error	Claims lack merit; not discussed at length; no reversal warranted

Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124 (explains favored status of arbitration and requirement that waiver of court access be clear)
Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323 (recognizes arbitration as favored method of dispute resolution)
Morgan v. Sanford Brown Inst., 225 N.J. 289 (standard of review for arbitration agreement validity is de novo)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (de novo review of legal determinations regarding arbitration agreements)
Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28 (arbitration agreements subject to ordinary contract defenses including unconscionability)
Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (discusses fee-shifting and remedies under applicable statutes)
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (employment is sufficient consideration for imposing employment-related contracts)
Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 330 N.J. Super. 252 (discusses economic duress and that ordinary job-related economic pressure is insufficient to void arbitration)