A former account executive for Salesforce must arbitrate her gender, age and disability claims with the company because she did not plausibly allege a sexual harassment charge that would invoke the Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York determined Friday.
The executive brought her lawsuit under a wide range of laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
However, the judge noted, none of her complaints — which included being treated more poorly than her male colleagues, being accused of false performance issues and more — amounted to sexual harassment that would fall under the EFAA.
Signed into law in March 2022 following bipartisan support, the EFAA prevents employers from requiring arbitration in cases that involve sexual assault or sexual harassment allegations — even when employees signed such agreements before the law went into effect.
The court evaluated the worker’s case under the NYCHRL, which both parties determined provided the most “lenient” and “expansive” definition of sexual harassment.
While both parties agreed the harassment the plaintiff described was not lewd or romantic in nature, the worker pointed to previous cases in which the NYCHRL intersected with the EFAA. But these cases did not establish the precedent that all gender-based discrimination claims fall under the umbrella of sexual harassment, the court said — and the main case the plaintiff pointed to “expressly rejected the notion.”
An attorney for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
With the EFAA being a relatively new law, the past few years have seen the establishment of early precedent in its interpretation.
Last November, for example, an Oregon federal district court judge determined that a worker could avoid arbitration and move forward in suing her employer when she was fired shortly after requesting safety accommodations related to ongoing domestic violence. Even though the employer did not cause or enable the violence, her status as a victim of sexual assault still triggered the law, the judge found.
While a settlement conference in the case was recently held, a court document showed it has not yet settled.
In February, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also set a major precedent in determining that when a plaintiff brings a lawsuit that includes a sexual harassment or sexual assault charge, the entire case must be barred from arbitration.