In Bailey v. A Place For Rover et al, 2023 WL 7167580 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 31, 2023), the court considered whether the relatively recently enacted Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) operated to render the defendant’s arbitration agreement unenforceable.
In sum, the EFAA renders unenforceable a “predispute arbitration agreement … with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.” 9 U.S.C. § 402(a).
In holding that the EFAA does not render defendant’s arbitration agreement unenforceable, the court explained:
While the alleged conduct is certainly reprehensible, this Court agrees with Defendant Rover that Plaintiffs do not allege a claim for “sexual harassment” as the term is defined in the EFAA. Here, Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking Statute (PHTS), 8 Pa. C.S. § 3051, and the Commonwealth’s wiretapping statute, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5703. Neither the PHTS nor the wiretapping statute is a law under which the alleged conduct constitutes “sexual harassment.” The PHTS applies to an individual who is a “victim of human trafficking” or a “victim of the sex trade.” § 3051. Plaintiffs do not contend that these characterizations apply here. The wiretapping statute does not invoke anything akin to “sexual harassment” in the first instance.
Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations did not meet the definition of “sexual harassment dispute” under the EFAA, rendering the statute inapplicable, and thus granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.