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” (which the Court rejected) and that, in any event, her claims were covered by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 401-402, the recently enacted federal law that shields claims for sexual harassment and sexual assault from arbitration.
This case reflects a growing trend in which plaintiffs attempt to evade arbitration by conflating sex discrimination with sexual harassment or assault in order to avail themselves of the EFAA’s narrow exemptions. Proskauer argued that the plaintiff’s allegations—namely, that female security guards were assigned less frequently to higher-paying emergency department shifts—constituted (if anything) sex discrimination, not sexual harassment or assault, and could not be recharacterized to nullify an otherwise valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.
In a relatively lengthy and well-reasoned order with nationwide implications in its interpretation of the EFAA, the Court agreed with the...
Kyiv on Monday dismissed claims that Ukraine passed fake intelligence to Washington to test leaks to Moscow, calling the allegations “distorted information.” The rumors began circulating after Vin...