In Diaz-Roa v. Hermes L., P.C., No. 24-3223-CV, 2026 WL 2931801 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit broadly interpreted the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”).
From the decision:
In 2022, the President signed the [EFAA]. When properly invoked, the EFAA enables a plaintiff who alleges conduct constituting sexual harassment or sexual assault to elect to invalidate an arbitration agreement that predates the alleged harassment or assault. This case requires us to decide whether—in making such an election pursuant to the EFAA—a plaintiff can invalidate the relevant pre-dispute arbitration agreement as to each of the claims within the plaintiff’s lawsuit, or only as to sexual harassment or sexual assault claims within that lawsuit. Here, Plaintiff-Appellee Silvia Diaz-Roa sued her employers, Defendants-Appellants Hermes Law, P.C. (“Hermes Law”), Syzygy Legal Tech, Inc. (doing business as “ClaimDeck”), and related individuals (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting claims for sexual harassment, as well as non-harassment claims in connection with allegations that Defendants unlawfully terminated her employment to prevent her from exercising previously-issued stock options that she had earned during her employment. We hold that, when it is applicable, the EFAA enables a plaintiff to invalidate a pre-dispute arbitration agreement as to the entire lawsuit, rather than only the sexual harassment or sexual assault claims contained within that lawsuit.
In reaching this conclusion, the court cited the statute’s plain text (specifically, its use of the word “case,” as opposed to the narrower word “claim” in its provision that renders unenforceable any pre-dispute arbitration agreement “with respect to a case which relates to a sexual harassment dispute” (emphasis added, cleaned up), as well as other circuits’ resolution of this issue.