In Lambert et al v. New Start Capital LLC et al, 1:24-cv-8055-GHW, 2025 WL 2295254 (S.D.N.Y. August 7, 2025), the court addressed a novel legal questions regarding the relatively new Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA).
In sum, one plaintiff – Lambert, a Black woman – alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment by one of her white male supervisors, including sending her “salacious text messages,” giving her “inappropriate gifts,” and making “sexual advances.” Another plaintiff, Abouzaid, alleges that she was terminated in retaliation after complaining of this conduct.
Initially, the court held that the EFAA applies to Lambert’s and Abouzaid’s claims (including their wage-and-hour claims):
Defendants concede that Lambert’s human rights law claims relate to conduct constituting sexual harassment and are therefore covered by the EFAA. Abouzaid’s retaliation claim likewise relates to conduct constituting sexual harassment and is therefore likewise covered by the EFAA. The Second Circuit has made clear that “retaliation resulting from a report of sexual harassment is ‘relat[ed] to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment.’ ” Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 112 F.4th 74, 92 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 401(4)). Abouzaid claims that she was fired for reporting Stein’s sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, Abouzaid alleges a “dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment.” 9 U.S.C. § 401(4). Her case, “relate[d] to … the sexual harassment dispute,” is therefore covered by the EFAA. 9 U.S.C. § 402(a).7
The EFAA applies to Lambert’s and Abouzaid’s wage-and-hour claims as well. Courts in this district almost uniformly hold that “if the EFAA is properly invoked and applies, the pre-arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable with respect to” the plaintiff’s “entire case.” Diaz-Roa, 757 F. Supp. 3d at 532; see also Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 3d 535, 558–61 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); Delo v. Paul Taylor Dance Found., Inc., 685 F. Supp. 3d 173, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC, No. 23-cv-9899 (PAE), 2024 WL 3862150, at *7–8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2024) (“Baldwin’s FLSA and NYLL claims clearly relate, factually and temporally, to her sexual harassment claims. They all arise from Baldwin’s employment at TMPL … and relate ‘to her own experience and employment’ there. They are thus a far cry from the types of far-afield claims unrelated to sexual harassment (e.g., of antitrust or securities law violations).” (internal citations omitted)); Puris v. TikTok Inc., No. 24-cv-944 (DLC), 2025 WL 343905, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2025) (“The defendants’ application to sever the claims not involving allegations of sexual harassment is denied.”). In any event, the Court discussed above how Lambert’s sexual harassment claims plausibly relate to her wage and hour claims.
The court further held, however, that the EFAA did not apply to another plaintiff’s, LeRouge, case. In addressing this issue, the court employed principles of statutory interpretation, holding that the EFAA applies only to the “case” of the person alleging conduct alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute.