Pros And Cons Of Terroration Agreements

Employers seeking alternatives to jury trials have traditionally looked to arbitration agreements. It is clear from my research the that Federal Courts will not permit states to constrict arbitration, and they will enforce arbitration agreements in all but the rarest circumstances, no matter how much advantage they give to the stronger parties. I agree with the legal trend that is visible in state and federal case law, to the extent that it has grown tremendously since the FAA was enacted, but I strongly believe that the states are on the right path by making sure that arbitration agreements. From my analysis of the cases discussed above, the legal trend of arbitration agreements in employment cases began with a reluctance by the courts to enforce, followed by growing acceptance of arbitration and waiver agreements, and progressed to a full acceptance with certain limitations. It is clear from state and federal case law that arbitration can be substituted for a jury trial in employment cases. However, there are a few reluctant states, New Jersey being one of them, that limit the ability of the employer to compel arbitration and impose higher standards for the company to prove good faith and fair dealing. Lower …show more content…
Therefore, New Jersey courts have developed the "clearly written" provision as a defense to evaluate arbitration agreements in employment contracts. The New Jersey courts will declare an arbitration provision unenforceable unless there is a specific and detailed agreement. Consequently, New Jersey employers must implement more detailed arbitration agreements. Although New Jersey has a general policy favoring alternative dispute resolution, it is clear the courts favor an employee’s right to adjudicate a dispute that arises from the employment relationship without a clearly written