J.H., a former boarding student at The Lawrenceville School, sued the school in New Jersey state court alleging that he was sexually assaulted by a school employee during his freshman year in 2019. The employee was later criminally charged and ultimately pleaded guilty to multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child involving J.H. and other students. J.H. continued attending the school after the assault and, for each subsequent school year, his parent executed annual enrollment agreements provided by the School.
In May 2025, J.H. filed a civil complaint asserting claims under New Jersey’s Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSAA), as well as claims for negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and vicarious liability. In response, the School moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause contained in the 2022-2023 enrollment agreement, which J.H.’s father had signed several years after the alleged assault. The School argued that the agreement’s broad arbitration provision and integration clause required all claims “arising out of or related to” J.H.’s enrollment to be resolved in arbitration, including claims based on events that occurred in earlier school years.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It concluded that there was no mutual assent to arbitrate claims arising from the 2019 sexual assault when the parent signed an enrollment agreement limited by its terms to the 2022-2023 academic year. The trial court found that a reasonable person would not understand that signing an enrollment agreement years later would waive the right to a jury trial for claims based on a prior sexual assault. The School appealed.
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed in part. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s contract interpretation and held that the arbitration provision in the 2022-2023 enrollment agreement was broad, unambiguous, and not limited to disputes arising only during that academic year. Reading the agreement as a whole, the Court concluded that the arbitration clause encompassed all disputes related to J.H.’s enrollment, including tort and statutory claims, and that the integration clause superseded prior agreements. As a matter of contract law, the appellate court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
However, the appellate court went on to consider whether J.H.’s claims were nonetheless barred from arbitration under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which amended the Federal Arbitration Act and which prohibits mandatory arbitration agreements for claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Although the trial court had not ruled on that issue, the appellate court addressed it due to the significant public interest involved. The Court held that the EFAA applied to J.H.’s case and rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
The appellate court explained that the EFAA invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements with respect to an entire “case” that relates to sexual assault or sexual harassment, not merely individual claims within the case. Because J.H.’s lawsuit included claims relating to sexual assault, and because New Jersey’s CSAA provides expansive accrual and tolling rules for such claims, the Court concluded that all of J.H.’s claims, including negligence and statutory claims, were barred from arbitration. The Court emphasized that the timing of the arbitration agreement did not change this outcome, because the EFAA applies to cases filed after its enactment that relate to sexual assault.
Accordingly, although the appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning, it affirmed the ultimate result and held that J.H.’s claims could proceed in court and were not subject to arbitration.
J.H. v. Lawrenceville Sch. (Super.Ct.App.Div. Jan. 28, 2026, No. A-3846-24) 2026 LX 57246.
Note: This decision underscores that, even where a school’s enrollment agreement contains a broad and otherwise enforceable arbitration provision, claims relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment may not be compelled to arbitration under federal law. While this case arose under New Jersey law, the federal EFAA applies nationwide, including in California.