Sixth Circuit Addresses Arbitrability of Individual Claims in Sexual Assault and Harassment Claims (US)

Key Takeaways

• Sixth Circuit bars arbitration of whole case with harassment claim
• EFAA’s “case” language extends non‑arbitrability to all claims
• Employers must reassess arbitration agreements for multi‑claim lawsuits
• Ruling may influence other appellate courts nationwide
• Disability claim stays non‑arbitrable when paired with harassment claim

Summary

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bruce v. Adams and Reese that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) bars arbitration of an entire case when any claim involves sexual harassment or assault. The court interpreted the statute’s reference to a “case” to mean all causes of action, not just the sex‑related claim. Consequently, the plaintiff’s disability‑discrimination claim cannot be compelled to arbitration alongside her harassment claim. The decision aligns the Sixth Circuit with a growing line of courts treating the EFAA as a blanket non‑arbitrability provision.

Pulse Analysis

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 was designed to give employees the option to pursue sexual misconduct claims in court, overturning a long‑standing trend of mandatory arbitration. By amending the Federal Arbitration Act, the EFAA explicitly invalidates pre‑dispute clauses that force arbitration of sexual harassment or assault disputes, but the statute’s broader language left open the question of whether non‑sexual claims in the same lawsuit could still be compelled to arbitrate. This ambiguity has prompted a wave of litigation across the country as courts grapple with the statute’s reach.

In the landmark Bruce v. Adams and Reese decision, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the EFAA’s reference to a “case” applies to the entire set of claims filed by an employee, not merely the sexual‑harassment allegation. The court emphasized that Congress could have limited the prohibition to individual claims by using the word “claim,” but chose “case” instead, signaling an intent to block arbitration of all related causes of action. As a result, the plaintiff’s disability‑discrimination claim, which would have been arbitrable under traditional precedent, remains in court because it is tied to a harassment claim.

The ruling carries immediate practical consequences for employers, especially those operating in the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction. Companies must review and potentially rewrite arbitration agreements to ensure compliance, acknowledging that any sexual‑harassment claim will nullify the entire arbitration clause. Moreover, the decision adds weight to similar arguments emerging in other circuits, suggesting a possible uniform national standard. Legal teams should proactively assess their dispute‑resolution policies, consider alternative mechanisms such as mediation, and prepare for the likelihood of full‑court litigation when harassment allegations arise.