2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-12-2009 

# Nuzz i v . Aup airc are Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1210

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Nuz z i v . Aup air car e Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 831. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/831T he H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal 1 T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 1210

_____________ N A N C Y N U Z Z I, A ppel l ant v. AUPAI RCARE , I NC. ; F RAN KU RZ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey N o. 07- cv- 03968 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember21, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges and R E ST A N I , C hi ef J udge 1 ( Fi l ed : A ugus t12, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. N a n c yN u z z i ap p e a ls f

ro m a g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts A upai r car e I nc. , and Fr an K ur z, A upai r car e, I nc. ’ s M i d- A t l ant i c R egi onal M anage r ( col l ect i vel y , “A PC ”) . Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand. I. B ec au se w e w ri te on lyfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l on lyad d ress the fa cts t h at are r el evantt o ouranal y s i s . N uzzi , a N ew J er s eyr es i dent , w as empl oy ed i n N ew J er s eyby A PC , a C al i forni a corpor at i on, fr om 2004 unt i l 2007. I n Februaryof 2007, s he t ook m at erni t yl eave and pl anned t o r etur n t o w ork t hatM ay . H ow ever , t hatA pr i l , s he w as te rm in a te d b yA P C , w h ic h c la im e d th a t s h e h a d b e e n th e s u b je c t o f c u s to m e r c o m p la in ts . N uzzi , bel i evi ng t hi s r eas on w as fal s e and w as onl ya pr et extt o fi r e herbeca us e of he r p reg n an cy , su ed A P C fo r vio lat ion s o f th e N ew Jerse yF am il yL ea v e A ct (“N JF L A ”), N . J. S . A . § 3 4 :11 B -1 to -16 , an d the N ew Jerse yL aw A g ains t D iscri m ination (“N JL A D ”), N . J . S. A . § 10: 5- 1 t o - 42. T he ce nt r al i s s ue i n t he ca s e s ur r ounds t he empl oym entagr eementbetw een N uzzi and A PC . T he agr eementcont ai ns a choi ce of l aw , arbi t r at i on, and choi ce of forum provis i on , w hich st at es: T hi s A gr eements hal l be governed and c ons t rued i n acc or dance w i t h t he l aw s of th e S tate o f

C a lifo rn ia a n d a n yc laim s o r d isp u tes a risin g o u t o f , o r re late d to th is A gr eementw i l l be det erm i ned bybi ndi ng arbi t r at i on upon t he pet i t i on of ei t her par t yi n San Fr anci s co, C al i forni a.3

A p p e n d ix (A p p .) 8 4 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatt he choi ce of l aw pr ovi s i on i n t he contr actw as v a lid a n d a p p lica b le, a n d th e re f o re g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f A P C . It d id notr eac h t he arbi t r at i on orforum s el ect i on cl aus e i s s ues . I n fi ndi ng t hatt he choi ce of l aw pr ovi s i on governed N uzzi ’ s cl ai m s , t he D i s tr i ctC our temphasi zed thati tw as “unambi guous , ” thatN uzzi “fr eel yent er ed i nt o” the agr eement , and that“[t ] he choi ce of l aw pr ovi s i on w as cl ear l ys t at ed. ” A pp. 12. T he C our tal s o expl ai ned that“the pr ovi s i on w as s etfor t h i n t he l as ts ect i on of the contr act [] , r i ghtbefor e the s i gnatur e l i nes ; t hus , t he pr ovi s i on w as notl os ti n t he othert er m s of the agr eementand i tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e for [N uzzi ] t o nothave s een i t . ” I d. I n addi t i on, t he C our tfound thatt he pr ovi s i on di d not v i o l a t e Ne w J e r s e yp u b l i c p o l i c yb e c a u s e , i f Nu z z i we r e s u c c e s s f

u l i n h e rc l a i m, C al i forni a’ s Fai rE m pl oym entand H ous i ng A ctw oul d gi ve N uzzi t he s ame r emedi es t hat sh e c o u ld p o ten tiallyre c e iv e u n d e r N e w Je rse ylaw . N u z z i th e n a p p e a led to th is C o u rt. II. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1332. W e have juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h is C o u rtrev iew s the g ran t of su m m ary jud g m en t de n o v o . G o n za lez v . A M R , 5 4 9 F . 3 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). “S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw her e ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m ovi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . See Fed. R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W h e n a n a ly z in g a su m m a ryju d g m e n t cla im , “w e m u st v iew th e f a c ts in4

t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng par t y , and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om i n t hatpar t y ’ s favor . ” N ew J er s eyT r ans i tC orp. v. H ar s co C orp. , 497 F. 3d 3 2 3 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). II I. “I n eval uat i ng w hethera contr actual choi ce- of- l aw cl aus e i s enfor cea bl e, fede r al cour t s s i t t i ng i n di ver s i t yappl yt he choi ce- of- l aw rul es of the forum s t at e . . . . ” H om a v. A m . E xpr es s C o. , 558 F. 3d 225, 227 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . G ener al l y , “w hen par t i es t o a contr acthave a gr eed t o be governed byt he l aw s of a pa r t i cul ars t at e, N ew Je rse yc o u rts w ill u p h o ld th e c o n tra c tu a l ch o ice if it d o e s n o t v io late N e w Je rse y ’s p u b lic pol i cy . ” I d. ( ci t at i on, quot at i on m ar ks , and emphas i s om i t t ed) . N uzzi cont ends t hatt he c h o ice o f law p ro v isio n in h e r a g re e m e n t w ith A P C sh o u ld n o t g o v e rn f o r tw o re a so n s: fi r s t , beca us e i tappl i es onl yt o contr actcl ai m s ar i s i ng outof the agr eement , nott o her sta tu to ryto rt c laim s u n d e r th e N JL A D a n d N JF L A , an d se c o n d , b e c a u se e n f o rc in g it w o u l d v i o l a t e N e w J e r s e y’ s p u b l i c p o l i c y. W hi l e the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our thas nots poken di r ect l yt o t he i s s ue of w hethers t atut or ycl ai m s undert he N J L A D orN J FL A w oul d be enc om pas s ed byt he type o f c h o i c e o f

l a w p r o v i s i o n a ti s s u e h e r e , i t s d e c i s i o n i n Ga r f i n k e l v . M o r r i s t o wn O bs t etr i cs & G ynecol ogyA s s oc. , 773 A . 2d 665 ( N . J . 2001) , pr ovi des gui dance as t o how itm igh t i n terpret su ch a c laus e. In G arf ink el, the C o u rtd ec ided that a m an d atory a rb itratio n c lau se in a n e m p lo ym e n t co n tra c t, w h ich sta ted th a t th e e m p lo y e e a g re e d to5

arbi t r at e “a nycontr over s yorcl ai m ar i s i ng outof, orr el at i ng t o, t hi s A gr eementort he b re a c h th e re o f

” d id n o t in c lu d e th e e m p lo y e e ’s c la im s u n d e r t h e N J L A D . Id . a t 6 6 8 , 6 7 2 . In so f in d in g , the C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t th e p ro v isio n “ su g g e sts th a t th e p a rties in ten d e d to arbi t r at e onl yt hos e di s put es i nvol vi ng a contr actt erm , a condi t i on of empl oym ent , or s om e otherel ementof the contr acti t s el f” r athert han the empl oy ee’ s s t atut or ycl ai m . I d. a t 6 7 2 . Per haps m or e i m por t ant l y , t he C our tal s o s t at ed that“the pol i ci es t hats uppor tt he [N J ] L A D and the r i ght s i tconfe r s on aggr i eved e m pl oy ees ar e es s ent i al t o er adi cat i ng di s cr i m i nat i on i n t he w or kpl ace , ” and thatN ew J er s eycour t s s houl d “notas s um e that em ploy ees i ntend t o w ai ve [thei r r i gh t s und er the N JL A D ] unl ess theiragreem ents so pr ovi de i n unambi guous t erm s . ” I d. A w ai verof s t atut or ycl ai m s r equi r es t hatan empl oy ee “ atl eas t. . . agr ee[ ] t o arbi t r at e al l s t atut or ycl ai m s ar i s i ng outof the empl oym entr el at i ons hi p ori t s t erm i nat i on” and “ r efl ectt he empl oy ee’ s gener al under s t andi ng of the type of c l ai m s i ncl uded i n t he w ai ver , e. g. , w or kpl ace di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s . ” I d. B as ed on the r eas oni ng of G ar fi nkel , w e fi nd t hatt he l anguage i n N uzzi ’ s contr act w i t h A PC i s notbr oad enough t o encompas s hers t atut or ycl ai m s undert he N J L A D or N JF L A , an d th u s th e c h o ice o f law c lau se sh o u ld n o t ap p lyto th e m . Ju st a s in G a rf in k e l, th e lan g u a g e in N u z z i’s c o n tra c t “s u g g e sts th a t th e p a rties in ten d e d ” f o r th e p ro v isio n to appl y“onl y[t o] t hos e di s put es i nvol vi ng a contr actt erm , a condi t i on of empl oym ent , or6

s o m e o th e r e le m e n t o f

th e c o n tr a c t its e lf

,” a n d n o t to h e r s ta tu to ry d is c ri m in a tio n c la im s . 773 A . 2d at672. Fur t herm or e, w e as s um e thatN ew J er s eyw oul d fol l ow t he G ar fi nkel r at i onal e i n t he choi ce of l aw cont extas w el l as t he arbi t r at i on cont ext , and r equi r e an empl oy ee t o w ai ve hers t atut or yr i ght s unambi guous l yi n or dert o enfor ce a choi ce of l aw pr ovi s i on agai ns ther . Such a w ai verdi d notoccurher e. T he choi ce of forum pr ovi s i on i n N uzzi ’ s agr eement– w hi ch pr ovi des t hatSan Fr anci s co, C al i forni a, s houl d be the f o ru m – s h o u ld n o t b e a p p lie d f o r t h e s a m e re a s o n . G ar fi nkel i s di r ect l yon poi ntw i t h r egar d t o t he arbi t r at i on ques t i on. T he l anguage i n N uzzi’ s contr acti s al m osti den t i cal t o the l ang uag e i n the G arfi nk el con t ract , and j ust as t he arbi t r at i on pr ovi s i on i n G ar fi nkel w as notbr oad enough t o encompas s t he e m p lo y e e ’s s tatu to ryc laim , the lan g u a g e in N u z z i’s c o n tra c t w ith A P C is in su f f icie n t to compel hert o arbi t r at e hercl ai m s undert he N J L A D orN J FL A . C om par e A pp. 84 (sta tin g th a t N u z z i ag re e d to a rb itrate “ a n yc laim s o r d isp u tes a risin g o u t o f , o r re late d to this A g ree m en t”) w ith 7 7 3 A . 2 d at 66 8 , 6 7 2 (i n v ali d ati n g arb itrati o n p rov isi o n w h ere e m p lo y e e a g re e d to a rb itrate “ a n yc o n tro v e rsy or c laim a risin g o u t o f , o r re latin g to , this A gr eementort he br eac h t her eof” ) . T her efor e, t he choi ce of l aw , choi ce of

forum , and a rb i t r a t i o n c l a u s e s i n Nuz z i ’ s a g r e e me n twi t h APC do n o ti n c l u d e h e rNJ LAD o rNJ FLA c l a i ms u n d e rNe w J e r s e yl a w. IV . A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt w ill b e v a c a ted , an d w e w ill7

r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.