A retired judge's old hospital job became the fight - but the objection came too late
A worker who lost her harassment case in arbitration waited too long to challenge the arbitrator - and a New Jersey appeals court agreed.
In 2017, staffing agency Adecco Staffing, USA hired the worker and placed her at University Hospital as an administrative assistant and credentialing specialist. When she joined Adecco, she signed a "Commitment Sheet" acknowledging she was "an employee of Adecco and not an employee of any [c]lient of Adecco."
For HR teams that route workplace disputes into arbitration, a New Jersey appellate decision issued on August 7, 2026 sends a plain message: once arbitration is under way, the window to object to the arbitrator closes quickly.
In February 2020, the worker sued the hospital under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. She alleged she had been sexually harassed and retaliated against by the finance director during her temporary assignment. Because she had an arbitration agreement with Adecco, the dispute moved to the American Arbitration Association (AAA), where a retired judge served as arbitrator.
The arbitrator dismissed the retaliation claim, then - after a three-day hearing - dismissed her remaining claims in a Final Award on April 19, 2023.
Two days later, her lawyer moved to vacate the award and remove the arbitrator. The reason: the arbitrator had once served as corporate counsel for Chilton Memorial Hospital, which the same lawyer had sued on behalf of a different client in 2003. According to the decision, the arbitrator mentioned that past role in a casual conversation in December 2022, after the worker had finished testifying.
The timing proved fatal. When the AAA asked both sides in late March 2023 whether they objected to the arbitrator, her counsel said nothing. The objection came only after the award landed against his client. In her later filing, the worker claimed the non-disclosure "smack[ed] of fraud, dishonesty and retaliation" - a characterization the courts rejected.
A trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice in November 2024, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
The court gave employers two signals. First, a party-appointed arbitrator has "no duty to disclose prior employment of over twenty years as corporate counsel for a former client" who is not part of the current case, because such remote ties are not a conflict of interest. Second, a party who proceeds through arbitration without objecting "waived the right to object" under AAA Rule 36.
The ruling is a reminder that arbitration awards draw an "extraordinarily deferential" review - and that objections to an arbitrator must be raised early, in writing, and on the record.
