In Kutagula v. Matterport, Inc., No. 25-CV-05383-NC, 2026 WL 478343 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) did not apply.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s allegations, while concerning if true and may describe sex discrimination, do not plausibly allege a sexual harassment claim. Plaintiff alleges her team was moved under a while male leader and she was disparaged for raising concerns and singled out. FAC ¶¶ 12, 33, 34, 35. The FAC does not allege that Plaintiff, for example, “was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or experienced ‘epithets, derogatory comments or slurs’ on the basis of her gender.” Johannessen v. JUUL Labs, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03681-JD, 2024 WL 3173286, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) (quoting 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11019(2)). Nor does the FAC allege “physical or visual harassment of a sexual nature.” Id. “Personnel actions such as ‘hiring and firing, job or project assignments, … the assignment or nonassignment of supervisory functions, deciding who will and who will not attend meetings, … and the like, do not come within the meaning of harassment.’ ” Id. (quoting Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs., 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 64–65 (1996)).
The court concluded that while plaintiff’s claims may be viable, they did not allege sufficient facts regarding the disparaging comments for the Court to conclude they were “severe or pervasive enough to alter the workplace environment” for the EFAA to apply.