Sixth Circuit Holds #MeToo-Era Law Bars Arbitration of All Claims in Lawsuit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a significant ruling interpreting the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA). This is the first time a court has held that the statute allows plaintiffs claiming workplace sexual harassment to keep their entire lawsuit in court — even when the case includes unrelated employment claims that would otherwise be subject to arbitration.
Congress passed the EFAA in 2022 to address concerns that arbitration agreements protected perpetrators of workplace sexual assault or harassment and allowed them to continue such acts without risk of public disclosure. The EFAA invalidates mandatory arbitration clauses for sexual harassment or assault claims, allowing such claims to be brought in open court, unless the plaintiff voluntarily opted to proceed under arbitration. The law was prompted by highly publicized cases highlighting the #MeToo movement, such as the multiple civil and criminal claims brought against well-known Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling affirmed a Tennessee district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of disability discrimination claims brought alongside sexual harassment allegations by a former law firm employee. This ruling, while not binding on other circuits, provides guidance to other courts and litigants testing the scope of the #MeToo‑era statute.
Case Background
The case involved a former employee suing an employer alleging a hostile work environment under Title VII, as well as claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The former employee had signed an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. The employer sought to compel arbitration of the ADA claims even if the sexual harassment claim proceeded in court.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that the EFAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to the entire action. The employer sought an interlocutory appeal.
“Case” Means the Entire Case
The Sixth Circuit held that the statute’s text is unambiguous and provides that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is unenforceable “with respect to a case” relating to a sexual harassment dispute. In its ruling, the court held that Congress’ choice of the word “case,” as opposed to the word “claim,” was key. The court concluded that “case” refers to the entire civil action, not individual causes of action within it. The court noted that had Congress intended to limit the arbitration bar to sexual harassment claims alone, it could have done so explicitly.
Broader Implications
The Sixth Circuit’s decision aligns with a growing body of district court rulings interpreting the EFAA broadly, but it marks the first time a federal appellate court has squarely held that the statute bars arbitration of an entire lawsuit when any claim alleges sexual harassment or assault.
Please contact Mark Fijman or any member of Phelps’ Labor and Employment team if you have questions.
