In Kerim v. ABM Industries et al, No. 24-CV-5599 (MMG) (HJR), 2026 WL 2030769 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2026), the court, inter alia, recommended that the court grant the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”).
From the decision:
Even under the most liberal standard applied to NYCHRL claims, Plaintiff does not plausibly plead a retaliation claim because Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show that she possessed a good faith, reasonable belief that she opposed an unlawful employment practice. While Plaintiff refers to filing sexual harassment grievances about Asencio and Pope, she pleads no facts about the underlying conduct addressed in those grievances. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that she was retaliated against for reporting harassment, see, e.g., Opp. at 73–74, 85–87, but she does not identify what Pope and Asencio did or why she considered it unlawful.10 See Hernandez v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Sanitation, No. 18-CV-1808, 2018 WL 5447540, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018) (holding Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim failed where the complaint did not “allege facts that would support a good faith reasonable belief that Plaintiff’s employer engaged in racial discrimination.”). Plaintiff’s retaliation claim related to harassment is not plausibly pleaded.
Accordingly, the court concluded that because plaintiff does not plausibly allege retaliation related to sexual harassment after the effective date of the EFAA, the EFAA does not bar arbitration of her claims.