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’
Quilala v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 2025 WL 3639429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Francisco Quilala alleged sexual harassment based on sexual orientation and other employment-related claims against his former employer (Securitas Security Services). In response to the complaint, the employer filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied based on the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
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