Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc.
202 A.3d 1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2019Background
- Skuse sued Pfizer for religious discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination after termination for refusing a yellow fever vaccine; Pfizer moved to dismiss and compel arbitration.
- Pfizer sent mass emails linking employees to an online “training module” presenting a Mutual Arbitration and Class Waiver Agreement and FAQs; the module included a Resources link to the full arbitration policy.
- The module’s final substantive slide presented a rectangular click-box labeled only “CLICK HERE to acknowledge,” and stated that continued employment for 60 days would render the employee “deemed” to have consented.
- Pfizer’s records showed Skuse completed the module and received an automated completion email; Skuse denied seeing or agreeing to any arbitration agreement.
- Trial court compelled arbitration based on Skuse’s inaction/continued employment and the module completion; Appellate Division reversed, finding Pfizer’s procedure failed to obtain an explicit, affirmative waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skuse validly agreed to arbitrate employment claims | Skuse never explicitly agreed or waived her right to court/jury; she did not sign or knowingly assent | Pfizer says the module, click-box, completion record, and 60‑day deemer show assent | Reversed trial court: module did not produce an explicit, unmistakable agreement to waive rights; arbitration not compelled |
| Whether an electronic "acknowledge" click suffices as assent under Leodori | "Acknowledge" is insufficient to show knowing, voluntary waiver | Electronic completion and automated confirmation substitute for signature | Click box labeled "acknowledge" fails; employer must obtain clear affirmative assent (use "agree") |
| Whether continued employment for 60 days can operate as consent (the deemer) | Continued employment alone does not prove knowing waiver | 60‑day deemer clause and long continued employment manifest assent | 60‑day deemer insufficient under Leodori absent separate affirmative assent; Jaworski distinguished |
| Whether employers may use digital training modules to obtain enforceable arbitration agreements | Employer must secure explicit assent; otherwise rights not waived | Digital dissemination and record-keeping are adequate in modern workplace | Electronic processes may suffice, but must clearly and prominently obtain explicit agreement (e.g., "agree" or electronic signature) |
Key Cases Cited
- Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 175 N.J. 293 (establishes requirement of explicit, affirmative employee assent to arbitration/waivers)
- Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (arbitration language must be clear and unambiguous that person is choosing arbitration over court)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (state contract-law principles apply to FAA/arbitration agreements)
- Jaworski v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, 441 N.J. Super. 464 (App. Div. panel holding continued employment may show assent when prior signed agreement exists; distinguished here)