In Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 330 N.J.Super. 252, 749 A.2d 405 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 527, 760 A.2d 781 (2000), the Court addressed the sufficiency of the language of an agreement to arbitrate in an employment contract. The employment contract stated that: Any claim or controversy between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, or in any way related to the terms and conditions of the employment of plaintiff by defendant, shall be settled by arbitration under the laws of the state in which plaintiff's office is located. Id. at 257, 749 A.2d 405. The Court recognized that "'a clause depriving a citizen of access to the courts should clearly state its purpose,' especially where the choice is to arbitrate disputes rather than litigate them," 330 N.J.Super. at 271, 749 A.2d 405 (quoting Marchak, supra, 134 N.J. at 282, 633 A.2d 531), and noted that "a court should construe ambiguous language against the interest of the party that drafted it." Ibid. (quoting Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 62, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 1219, 131 L.Ed.2d 76, 87 (1995)). The Court held that the arbitration language was ambiguous and not broad enough to encompass plaintiff's claim of a LAD violation. Id. at 270-72, 749 A.2d 405. The Court found the language of the arbitration clause narrow and inapplicable to waive the plaintiff's statutory claim under the LAD. Quigley, supra, 330 N.J. Super. at 270-74, 749 A.2d 405. The arbitration clause in Quigley stated that "any claim or controversy between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, or in any way related to the terms and conditions of the employment . . . shall be settled by arbitration." Id. at 257, 749 A.2d 405. The Court noted that "there is no mention in the clause of arbitrating disputes arising from 'plaintiff's termination' . . . nor is there any reference in the arbitration clause to statutory claims arising out of and redressable by the LAD or other discrimination laws." Id. at 272, 749 A.2d 405. Thus, this court concluded that the arbitration clause in Quigley was no more inclusive than the one in Alamo Rent A Car which was inadequate to constitute a waiver of statutory remedies under the LAD. Ibid.