The little-known case of a former Trump campaign staffer could have big implications for the legal battle taking shape between Donald Trump and former Trump aide-turned-wrecking ball, Omarosa Manigault Newman. On Thursday, a Manhattan judge, citing flaws in the Trump campaign employment agreement, denied a motion by the campaign’s lawyers to force the complaint of a former staffer into private arbitration. Jessica Denson filed the "harassment and sexual discrimination" complaint against the campaign last fall and, similar to the situation with Manigault Newman, Trump's lawyers tried to keep the dispute from the public spectacle of open court by using the arbitration clause. But Judge Arlene Bluth of New York State Supreme Court found the wording of the agreement—ya know, the technical stuff that lawyers are paid to handle—failed to legally compel the action Trump's lawyers were asking the court to take. Yahoo News writes:
Bluth’s ruling noted flaws in the agreement Denson was required to sign. The judge suggested the document was worded badly, and implied it could have done what the campaign’s attorneys wanted if it had been written better.
“As an initial matter, the Court observes that the arbitration clause confines arbitration to ‘any dispute arising under or relating to this agreement,’” Bluth wrote, adding with emphasis, “It does not require arbitration for any ‘dispute between the parties’ or even ‘any dispute arising out of plaintiff’s employment.’”
Imagine that—shoddy work by Trump's lawyers. The confidentiality agreement signed between the parties wasn't even titled "Employment Agreement," noted Bluth, but simply "Agreement" instead. Maybe they should have just scrapped the documentation altogether and shaken on it instead. Coulda saved Trump a lot of money.
The agreement also didn't specifically cover sexual harassment claims. Instead it specified the following prohibited acts: “no disclosure of confidential information, no disparagement, no competitive services, no competitive solicitation, and no competitive intellectual property claims.”
“There is simply no way to construe this arbitration clause in this agreement to prevent … pursuing harassment claims in court. The arbitration clause could have been written to require any disputes arising out of … employment to go to arbitration. … But it did not,” wrote Bluth.
Just wow. It's like Stephen Miller was running Trump's legal shop too.
Even better, the controlling precedent requiring that such an agreement “expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute" was a standard set in a 1993 case involving Trump, Trump v. Refco Properties, Inc. Trump actually used the omission of explicit language to thwart arbitration in that case.
Bluth specifically cited that decision in her ruling against Trump’s campaign.
Bottom line: the flawed wording of the agreement could have implications for all agreements signed by staffers for the Trump campaign, the Trump White House and even the Trump Organization. While Manigault Newman's case has mostly been discussed as a First Amendment matter so far, it's possible the dispute wouldn't even reach the constitutional question if the underlying agreement itself is deficient.