A recent ruling by a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York has clarified a critical aspect of the Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA). The court determined that gender-based allegations, even those involving age and disability discrimination, cannot trigger the protections of the EFAA unless they plausibly allege sexual harassment or sexual assault. This decision means that a former account executive for Salesforce will be required to arbitrate her claims of gender, age, and disability discrimination, as her lawsuit did not sufficiently demonstrate a sexual harassment charge.
The case involved a former account executive who filed a lawsuit against Salesforce, citing a broad spectrum of legal protections including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Her complaints included allegations of disparate treatment compared to male colleagues and accusations of fabricated performance issues. However, the court found that these grievances, while potentially constituting other forms of discrimination, did not rise to the level of sexual harassment as defined by the EFAA.
Background of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act
The EFAA, enacted in March 2022 with bipartisan support, represents a significant legislative shift in addressing workplace misconduct. Its primary objective is to prevent employers from mandating arbitration for claims involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. This legislation applies retroactively, meaning it overrides any pre-existing arbitration agreements that employees may have signed, ensuring that victims of sexual assault and harassment have the right to pursue their cases in court. The law was a response to growing concerns about the prevalence of mandatory arbitration clauses that often shielded employers from public accountability and limited victims’ access to justice. Prior to the EFAA, many employment contracts included clauses requiring employees to resolve disputes, including those of a sexual nature, through private arbitration rather than public litigation. This practice was criticized for its potential to silence victims and perpetuate harmful workplace environments.
The Salesforce Case: A Deep Dive into the Court’s Reasoning
In adjudicating the Salesforce executive’s case, the court meticulously examined the allegations against the backdrop of New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), which both parties acknowledged offered the most "lenient" and "expansive" definition of sexual harassment. Despite this broad interpretation, the judge concluded that the executive’s claims did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment.
The core of the court’s reasoning rested on the nature of the alleged misconduct. While the plaintiff described experiences of being treated unfairly and facing manufactured performance issues, the court noted that these actions were not characterized as lewd, unwelcome sexual advances, or of a romantic nature. The plaintiff attempted to draw parallels to previous cases where the NYCHRL and the EFAA intersected. However, the court distinguished these precedents, stating that they did not establish a broad principle that all gender-based discrimination claims automatically fall under the purview of sexual harassment for EFAA purposes. Crucially, the court referenced a key case that "expressly rejected the notion" of such an expansive interpretation.
The judge’s decision highlights a crucial distinction: while gender discrimination, age discrimination, and disability discrimination are serious offenses and are protected under various federal and state laws, they are legally distinct from sexual harassment. The EFAA specifically targets the unique power dynamics and harms associated with sexual assault and harassment, aiming to provide a more accessible avenue for victims of these specific forms of misconduct.
Precedents and Emerging Interpretations of the EFAA
As a relatively new piece of legislation, the EFAA has been the subject of ongoing judicial interpretation, with several key rulings shaping its application. The Salesforce case adds another layer to this developing body of precedent.
Oregon Federal District Court Ruling (November 2025)
In a notable case from November 2025, an Oregon federal district court judge ruled that a worker could opt out of arbitration and pursue her lawsuit against her employer. This case involved an employee who was terminated shortly after requesting safety accommodations related to ongoing domestic violence. The court determined that even though the employer did not directly cause or facilitate the domestic violence, the worker’s status as a victim of sexual assault was sufficient to invoke the protections of the EFAA. This ruling underscored that the EFAA could apply even when the assault or harassment itself was not directly perpetrated by the employer or did not occur within the workplace, as long as the victim’s circumstances triggered the law. A settlement conference in that case was reportedly held recently, though no settlement has been announced.
Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling (February 2026)
Another significant precedent was set in February 2026 by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling established that if a plaintiff’s lawsuit includes even a single claim of sexual harassment or sexual assault, the entire case must be barred from arbitration. This broad interpretation means that employers cannot cherry-pick claims to arbitrate while allowing others to proceed in court. Instead, the presence of a sexual harassment or assault claim compels the entire dispute to be litigated in a public forum, thereby enhancing accountability and transparency. This ruling was seen as a victory for victims, ensuring that employers cannot use arbitration clauses to shield themselves from public scrutiny for egregious misconduct.
Implications for Employers and Employees
The Salesforce ruling has several important implications for both employers and employees navigating the landscape of workplace disputes and arbitration agreements.
For employers, this decision reinforces the necessity of carefully distinguishing between different types of workplace claims. While employers must continue to address all forms of discrimination and harassment with the utmost seriousness, they can now more confidently rely on arbitration agreements for claims that do not meet the specific criteria for sexual harassment or assault under the EFAA. However, this does not diminish the importance of robust internal policies and procedures for investigating and addressing all allegations of misconduct, regardless of whether they fall under the EFAA. The legal and reputational risks associated with any form of discrimination or harassment remain substantial. Companies will need to ensure their legal teams are well-versed in the evolving EFAA case law to accurately assess which claims are subject to mandatory arbitration and which may be litigated in court.
For employees and their legal representatives, the ruling clarifies that the EFAA is a targeted law. While it offers crucial protections, it is not a universal exemption from arbitration for all gender-based claims. Employees alleging discrimination based on gender, age, or disability must ensure their claims, if seeking to avoid arbitration under the EFAA, include plausible allegations of sexual harassment or assault. This may require careful drafting of legal complaints and a thorough understanding of the legal definitions and precedents surrounding these specific types of misconduct. It also underscores the importance of seeking legal counsel experienced in employment law and the nuances of arbitration agreements and the EFAA.
Broader Context and Future Outlook
The ongoing legal interpretations of the EFAA reflect a broader societal push for greater accountability in workplaces concerning sexual misconduct. As more cases are litigated, clearer guidelines are expected to emerge, providing greater certainty for both employers and employees. The Salesforce decision, by emphasizing the specific nature of allegations required to invoke the EFAA, helps to refine the boundaries of this important law.
The case also highlights the critical role of New York City Human Rights Law, known for its expansive protections. However, even within this broad framework, the court found that the plaintiff’s claims did not meet the EFAA’s threshold. This suggests that while state and local laws may offer robust protections against various forms of discrimination, the EFAA’s application is strictly tied to allegations of sexual assault or harassment.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, businesses will need to remain vigilant in their compliance efforts. This includes not only updating their arbitration policies but also fostering a workplace culture that actively prevents and addresses all forms of harassment and discrimination. The objective remains to ensure that all employees have a safe and equitable work environment, with clear pathways to seek redress when those rights are violated. The EFAA, through these judicial interpretations, continues to be a pivotal tool in achieving that objective, albeit with specific parameters that require careful understanding and application.
An attorney representing the former Salesforce executive did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The outcome of this case, while requiring arbitration for the specific claims presented, does not preclude the executive from pursuing her gender, age, and disability claims through arbitration. However, the ruling firmly establishes that the EFAA will not be a gateway to circumvent arbitration for these claims unless sexual harassment or assault is credibly alleged.
About the Author
