New Jersey Lawyers Blog

Published on: March 1, 2012

New Jersey’s Different Treatment of Employee Arbitration Agreements and Insurance Policies is Difficult to Reconcile

New Jersey and Federal law have established a strong legal policy in favor of arbitration. New Jersey’s courts, like the federal courts, regularly uphold arbitration agreements in employment contracts. They have repeatedly enforced these agreements and do not consider them “contracts of adhesion.” This is starkly different than how New Jersey’s courts treat insurance policies, and ignores the long-established legal principles upon which its analysis of insurance policies rests.

Contracts of adhesion are agreements where the two parties have unequal bargaining power, and the party with the greater leverage forces “oppressive or unconscionable” terms on the other. They are often presented on a “take it or leave it” basis. When a New Jersey court finds a contract of adhesion, it will strain to protect the weaker party, whether by construing the agreement against the stronger party, eliminating unfair or oppressive terms, or voiding it in its entirety.

In Martindale v. Sandvik New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that despite forcing an employee at the company’s Fair Lawn plant to give up her constitutionally protected right to a trial by a jury of her peers, the agreement was not “oppressive or unconscionable.”

An employee and employer, especially a large, multi-national corporation such as Sandvik, simply do not have equal bargaining power. There is a large labor pool for employers to choose from, especially in these troubled times. This gives the employer the upper hand. Employers can – and do – tell employees to agree to arbitration or go look for work elsewhere; this is no choice at all for most employees. Indeed, this is all the more true when an arbitration requirement is adopted as a policy after an employee has already started work and is given the choice of either agreeing to arbitration or being out of a job, despite the years, and often decades, invested by the employee.
Continue reading

Published on: February 29, 2012

Looking for a Job in New Jersey – Employees Beware!

by Boris Peyner

Employers commonly require that potential employees sign agreements waiving their right to jury trials and, instead, requiring them to arbitration all disputes arising from their employment. New Jersey and Federal law supports enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Arbitration agreements are controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act and the New Jersey Arbitration Act. In arbitration, a dispute is submitted to a neutral third-party who makes a binding decision.

Although arbitration can be cheaper and faster than litigation, it is more advantageous to the employer. First, a decision is made by a single person (usually a lawyer or a retired judge) instead of a jury, which might be more sympathetic to an employee (especially since the arbitrator will know that the employer drafted the agreement and chose arbitration). In addition, discovery of information between the parties is significantly limited, favoring the employer which has most of the evidence, especially in a suit for wrongful firing. It is also difficult to appeal an arbitration agreement.

It is important to read employment documents presented carefully. People presented with arbitration agreements should seek an attorney’s advice because courts generally enforce arbitration agreements, even though they appear to be contracts of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is an agreement that is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis by a party with dominant bargaining power. Normally contracts of adhesion are unenforceable. However, in 2002 the New Jersey Supreme Court in Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., ruled that employment agreements requiring arbitration are not contracts of adhesion.
Continue reading

Published on: February 24, 2012

Registration and Contracting Requirements for New Jersey Home Improvement Contractors – a Sword and a Shield

by McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC

New Jersey’s Contractors’ Registration Act, passed in 2004, requires contractors to register with the Division of Consumer Affairs (known as “the DCA,” a part of the Department of Law and Public Safety in the Attorney General’s Office) and disclose specific information to homeowners in a written contract. Violation of this act carries significant penalties.

The Act requires disclosures such as start and stop dates; materials to be used; and payment amounts, breakdowns, due dates and bench marks. It also requires proof of insurance; display of registration numbers; certain other specific information; copies of warranties; and notices of the consumer’s right to cancel within three business days.

Violations of same provisions of the Act can be crimes of the fourth degree, with sentences up to eighteen months in prison, and violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which entitles homeowners to triple damages plus their attorneys fees. Therefore, it is good practice for contractors to have experienced attorneys who know the requirements of the Act draft their written contracts.

Published on: February 23, 2012

Proposed Regulations May Give New Jersey Residents and Homeowners Relief in Credit Issues

by McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC

New Jersey residents face many financial issues – layoffs, business failures, depressed housing prices, reduced wages and overtime, high interest rates, credit card debt, loan and mortgage payments. For years, many New Jersey residents have been pursued by debt collection agencies and attorneys. While some individuals do owe money, some people hounded by debt collectors don’t owe anything at all. Often, it is a case of mistaken identity, confused paperwork, or unrecorded payments. In other cases, New Jersey residents have encountered problems but resolved them with the lender, only to find that the debt collector (agencies or attorneys) don’t get the word or chose to ignore it. The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has provided some measure of protection, but mainly in the areas of disclosure and communications and required notices by the debt collectors. Other than that, there was no federal help.

In July 2011, however, the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new consumer financial watchdog, was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Bureau has drafted proposed regulations which would place the major debt collection agencies, including debt collection lawyers, under federal regulation and scrutiny. These regulations apply only to debt collectors recovering more than ten million dollars per year from consumers. It would also regulate and scruitinize credit reporting agencies, but again only the largest ones which earn seven million dollars or more from their consumer business. The regulations have just entered the proposal process, which begins a sixty day comment period before the regulations can become final. After that, undoubtedly, debt collection agencies will challenge the regulations in court; and the regulations themselves do not yet offer direct remedies to aggrieved residents. However, when they becomes final and allow for regulation and scrutiny of the debt collectors, including attorneys, the regulations are bound to have a positive impact on New Jersey residents hounded by debt collectors.

There are currently some federal remedies. For example, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires that debt collectors disclose what they are, regulates the communications they can make, and requires them to verify the debt if demand is made by a consumer. Additionally, New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act provides other significant remedies against unscrupulous or sloppy debt collectors, and significant penalties for violation.

Some might not think that this regulation is necessary. However, our experience has been that in many cases debt collectors go after the wrong people. Sometimes they simply get the wrong person. Other times payments were not recorded. Some people have worked out resolutions with lenders after they have fallen behind on payments, but the debt collectors (agencies and attorneys) refuse to honor or acknowledge the settlements.
Continue reading