MALAVE v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
2:23-cv-22529
D.N.J.May 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Rockwell Malave, a New Jersey resident, was terminated by Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in September 2023 and alleges TCS violated the NJ WARN Act by failing to provide proper layoff notice and severance.
- Malave seeks to represent a class of similarly situated former employees in a claim for statutory severance and related relief under the NJ WARN Act.
- During litigation, TCS produced a previously undisclosed separation agreement signed by Malave that included a dispute resolution clause requiring arbitration.
- TCS moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation, arguing the clause covers all claims related to employment or separation.
- Plaintiff opposed, arguing the arbitration clause was invalid under New Jersey law because it failed to clearly notify him he was waiving his right to court or jury trial.
- The Court considered the applicable law (New Jersey vs. New York), enforceability of the arbitration clause, and whether TCS waived the right to arbitrate. Ultimately, TCS’s motion to compel arbitration was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable Law | New Jersey law should apply; choice-of-law argument waived by TCS | New York law should apply per the contract’s choice-of-law clause | New Jersey law governs; TCS did not timely preserve the choice-of-law issue and New Jersey has a materially greater interest |
| Enforceability of Arbitration Clause | Arbitration provision invalid under New Jersey law because it lacks clear waiver of court/jury trial | Provision is enforceable; agreement backed by consideration and not adhesion | Clause unenforceable under NJ law; lacks clear disclosure of waiver of court/jury trial rights |
| Substantial Relationship to New York | No substantial connection; Plaintiff employed and terminated in NJ | TCS has executives and subsidiaries in New York | Court finds insufficient nexus to New York; relevant conduct in NJ |
| Fundamental Policy Exception | Applying NY law would violate NJ public policy protecting access to courts | No actual conflict between NY/NJ law; choice-of-law enforceable | Applying NY law would offend NJ’s fundamental policy favoring court/jury access in employment disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (explains federal policy favoring arbitration, but not over state contract principles)
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (noting arbitration agreements should be as enforceable as other contracts)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns. Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (addresses scope of arbitration clauses)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (defines a corporation’s principal place of business for jurisdiction)
- James v. Glob. TelLink Corp., 852 F.3d 262 (outlines requirements for mutual assent under NJ law)
- Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 814 A.2d 1098 (requires concrete manifestation of intent regarding arbitration in employment contracts)
- Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 99 A.3d 306 (NJ requires arbitration clauses clearly indicate waiver of right to sue in court)