Skip to Content

NJ Supreme Court Finds State Arbitration Law Applies to FAA-Exempt Workers
August 11, 2020

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a combined opinion in two cases arising from arbitration agreements in employment contracts. The plaintiffs in the respective cases claimed they fell within section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), also known as the "exemption clause," and thus that their disputes were not subject to arbitration. The question in both cases was whether the disputed arbitration clauses would still be enforceable under the New Jersey Arbitration Act (NJAA), even assuming section 1 of the FAA applied. The court answered in the affirmative, thereby reversing the appellate decision in one case and affirming it in the other.

Section 1 of the FAA states that the FAA shall not "apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Citing a 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that section 1 applies only to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. It was undisputed that the plaintiffs in one of the subject cases were exempt. The court remanded the other case for a determination whether the plaintiffs fell within section 1. Nonetheless, the court explained that, absent preemption, New Jersey arbitration agreements have been automatically subject to the NJAA since 2003. The court held that the NJAA is nearly identical to the FAA and incorporates the same policies strongly favoring arbitration. The court therefore rejected the notion that the arbitration clauses at issue were not (or otherwise could not be) governed by the NJAA merely because they did not expressly invoke the statute. Moreover, having determined that the NJAA is not preempted by the FAA, the court ruled that the NJAA may apply to arbitration agreements even if parties to the agreements are exempt from arbitration under section 1 of the FAA.

Arafa v. Health Express Corp., No. 083174, and Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, No. 083154 (N.J. July 14, 2020).
Authored By
Image: Alex B. Silverman
Alex B. Silverman
Related Practices
Reinsurance
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.