## Facts

- Joseph A. Quigley worked for KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP for about 18 years, rising to senior manager in its telecommunications consulting practice.
- In 1981 and 1984, upon promotion and as a condition of continued employment, KPMG required Quigley to sign employment agreements containing arbitration provisions for claims “arising out of the agreements, or breach thereof.”
- Quigley signed both agreements but wrote “U.D.” (under duress) next to his signature, believing refusal would cost him his job.
- Quigley worked from a home office, received positive evaluations, and obtained bonuses and raises.
- In July 1996, KPMG terminated Quigley without notice or stated good cause and filled the position with a younger person.
- In July 1998, Quigley sued in New Jersey Superior Court alleging age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

## Issues

1. Whether the employment agreements were unenforceable due to economic duress based on the threat of job loss if Quigley did not sign.
2. Whether the arbitration provisions constituted a knowing and voluntary waiver of Quigley’s right to litigate an LAD claim in court, including a jury trial and statutory remedies.
3. Whether an arbitration clause limited to disputes “arising out of the agreement” is sufficiently clear to require arbitration of statutory discrimination claims.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order dismissing the complaint and compelling arbitration.
- The court rejected Quigley’s economic-duress argument and treated the agreements as valid contracts.
- The court held Quigley did not knowingly and voluntarily waive a jury trial on an LAD claim because, when he signed in 1981 and 1984, no statutory jury-trial right for LAD claims existed.
- The court held the arbitration language was too ambiguous and limited to contract-based disputes to constitute a clear waiver of LAD statutory remedies.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Economic duress requires an unlawful act that overbears a party’s free will; ordinary pressure to keep one’s job, without more, does not void an employment agreement.
- Agreements to arbitrate statutory employment claims are enforceable only if the waiver of statutory rights and remedies is knowing and voluntary.
- A waiver is not knowing and voluntary as to a right that did not exist when the agreement was executed.
- Arbitration provisions must be stated with sufficient clarity to alert an employee that statutory discrimination claims and related statutory remedies are being submitted to arbitration; contract-limited language may be inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the LAD age-discrimination action to proceed in court because, although the arbitration agreements were not void for duress, their wording did not clearly and knowingly waive statutory LAD remedies or a jury trial, particularly where the asserted jury-trial right did not exist when the agreements were signed.


Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 749 A.2d 405 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000)