Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, 1:15-cv-02382

Background

In Feb 2015 Noye applied to Kelly for a J&J operations supervisor role, completed Kelly’s online application, checked an acknowledgment box on an arbitration screen, and electronically signed an arbitration agreement dated Feb 12, 2015.
Noye also signed a separate Employment Agreement dated Feb 13, 2015 concerning assignments to J&J that referenced non‑binding ADR when a customer (like J&J) offers an ADR program and stated it did not commit to binding arbitration.
Kelly conducted a background check via Yale; J&J rescinded the assignment after a report allegedly mischaracterized offenses, and Noye sued Kelly and J&J claiming violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681b(b)(2) and (b)(3)).
Kelly and J&J moved to compel arbitration; the court permitted limited discovery and then considered renewed motions under the summary‑judgment standard for arbitrability.
The court found Noye electronically received and signed Kelly’s arbitration agreement, concluded the Employment Agreement did not supersede it, rejected procedural and most substantive unconscionability arguments, and held Noye’s FCRA claims fall within the arbitration agreement as employment‑related.
The court granted Kelly’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings as to Kelly; it deferred ruling on J&J’s motion to compel (non‑signatory) and ordered supplemental briefing on equitable estoppel in light of White v. Sunoco.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a valid arbitration agreement between Noye and Kelly	Noye says he does not recall signing; argues procedural defects in presentation	Kelly points to plaintiff’s electronic signature, application flow, and session data showing acknowledgment	Court: No genuine dispute — Noye electronically received and signed the arbitration agreement
Whether the later Employment Agreement supersedes the Arbitration Agreement	Employment Agreement disclaims binding arbitration and thus supersedes prior arbitration agreement	Kelly says Employment Agreement contemplates non‑binding ADR when a customer offers it and does not revoke the arbitration agreement	Court: Employment Agreement does not supersede; both agreements can be read to coexist
Unconscionability of the arbitration agreement	Noye contends clause is procedurally unconscionable (take‑it‑or‑leave‑it, buried link) and substantively unconscionable (300‑day limitations, confidentiality)	Kelly argues plaintiff had capacity, the clause was visible, provisions are severable and reasonable	Court: Agreement not procedurally unconscionable; substantive claims rejected or left undecided (300‑day period not decided); confidentiality not unconscionable
Scope: Do Noye’s FCRA claims fall within the arbitration agreement?	Noye argues claims arise in pre‑employment context and thus are outside employment‑related arbitration scope	Kelly contends claims (procurement of report and failure to provide notices) were employment‑related and affected his assignment	Court: Claims fall within arbitration agreement (both §1681b(b)(2) and §1681b(b)(3)); arbitration compelled and case stayed as to Kelly; J&J’s attempt to compel deferred for briefing on equitable estoppel

Key Cases Cited

Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard for district courts in deciding whether an arbitration agreement was reached after limited discovery)
Flintkote Co. v. Aviva PLC, 769 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2014) (two‑step FAA analysis: validity of agreement and scope of arbitrable dispute)
Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 584 F.3d 513 (3d Cir. 2009) (FAA establishes federal policy favoring arbitration)
Lloyd v. HOVENSA, LLC, 369 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (§3 of FAA requires a stay pending arbitration; dismissal is not compelled)
Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2009) (distinguishes claims of never receiving agreement from forgetfulness when evaluating disputed assent to arbitration)
Par‑Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Co., 636 F.2d 51 (3d Cir. 1980) (unequivocal denial of contract formation with supporting affidavits can require a jury determination)
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (statutory claims can be subject to arbitration if arbitration permits effective vindication of statutory rights)