The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) has dramatically altered the arbitration landscape for workplace harassment claims—but not without creating deep uncertainty. This newly-published article, co-authored by Proskauer Rose LLP’s Tony Oncidi, examines how the statute’s imprecise drafting has fueled years of court battles over the EFAA’s scope, timing, and application. It also explores competing perspectives: calls from plaintiffs’
Proskauer secured a victory for our client on a motion to compel arbitration in a sex discrimination action filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged sex-based discrimination and harassment; retaliation; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; constructive termination; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although the plaintiff had executed an arbitration agreement before beginning employment, she argued the agreement was “unconscionable”
Since its enactment, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act has resulted in plaintiffs’ lawyers tacking on increasingly implausible sexual harassment claims to unrelated garden-variety employment claims in a naked attempt to defeat otherwise enforceable arbitration agreements. Numerous courts across the country have permitted (and thereby encouraged) these poison-pill sexual harassment claims, which have become just the latest weapon plaintiffs are
In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98—a do-or-die statute requiring employers to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to arbitrate altogether—is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). While it is not the precise outcome employers may have hoped for, many employers are correctly viewing the decision as
On May 19, 2025, Proskauer attorneys successfully compelled to arbitration an employment discrimination lawsuit that had been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. While the former employee claimed that she never signed the arbitration agreement because she lacked access to her work email while on medical leave, the defendants established with emails showing that the employee actually did “access the . . . platform”
As we have reported time and again, California courts have applied extra scrutiny to employee arbitration agreements in recent years, and have not hesitated to deny arbitration where there is a reasonable basis for doing so. This trend demands that employers be vigilant and update arbitration agreements when developments in the law implicate them. In the recent case of Ford v. The Silver F,
Originally published in Law360: “6 Reasons Why Arbitration Offers Equitable Resolutions”
On the 100th anniversary of the Federal Arbitration Act, it is worth recalling that the law was enacted in 1925 in response to what the U.S. Supreme Court later called, in its 2011 opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, “widespread judicial hostility” to arbitration.[1]
A century later, arbitration is still controversial, and remains
The California Court of Appeal dealt another blow to arbitration, just months after we reported the last such decision here.
This time, the Court ruled that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) overrides state law—even in cases in which the employee has signed an arbitration agreement that explicitly invokes state law favoring arbitration.
Kristin Casey, a former
As 2024 came to a close, yet another California jury delivered a massive award to an individual plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. This time, it was an award of over $11 million by a San Diego jury to a medical screener at a plasma donation center (Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.). The 74-year-old plaintiff alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her
The future of PAGA continues to look a bit brighter for employers as new favorable case law emerges. We previously reported on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. wherein the California Supreme Court ruled that PAGA plaintiffs have no standing to intervene in parallel PAGA lawsuits. We are now happy to report that another “win” for employers has come out of Second Appellate District of the Los