Public Justice, along with the National Women's Law Center, and other organizations, filed an amicus brief in a case considering whether the Ending Forced Arbitration in Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 protects the entire case from going to arbitration or only the sexual assault and/or harassment portion of the complaint. This brief particularly describes how legislative history reveals that the whole case can be removed from arbitration so as to not position plaintiffs to pursue claims in both arbitration and court, which is inefficient and costly.
The Introduction and Summary of Argument is excerpted here:
Passed in 2022 with bipartisan support, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA” or “the Act”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 401402, provides survivors of sexual assault and harassment with the right to seek justice in court instead of being forced into arbitration proceedings. The Act states that, “at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute . . . no predispute arbitration agreement . . . shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.” 9 U.S.C. § 402(a).
The district court correctly interpreted the Act to conclude that PlaintiffAppellee Silvia Diaz-Roa’s case, which includes sexual harassment claims, was not subject to arbitration. Defendants-Appellants and their amicus, the Chamber of Commerce (“the Chamber”), argue that the district court erred because Ms. DiazRoa’s case involves not only claims of harassment but also what they call “business related” disputes. According to their interpretation, only claims that relate to sexual assault or harassment can be subject to the EFAA. That argument directly contravenes the text of the Act, which invalidates an arbitration agreement as to an entire case, and has been resoundingly rejected by all but one of the district courts around the country that have examined this issue.
In Amici’s view, the EFAA’s plain text compels affirmance here. But, should the Court determine that more is required, Amici offer this brief to explain why Defendants’ and the Chamber’s interpretation also contravenes the Act’s legislative purpose and history. Congress passed the EFAA to empower survivors of sexual assault and sex-based harassment to seek justice in court instead of in individual and confidential arbitration, which studies show favors corporations and undermines plaintiffs’ ability to enforce their rights. The legislative record confirms what is written in the statutory text: Congress intended the EFAA to have a broad scope, covering any case related to conduct alleged to constitute a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute. The interpretation put forth by Defendants and the Chamber, by contrast, would lead to exactly the result Congress intended to avoid by making it harder and more burdensome for plaintiffs to access justice and vindicate their rights.
For these reasons, and those provided by Ms. Diaz-Roa, this Court should affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
The full brief is here: https://www.publicjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/diaz-roa_250707_amicus.pdf.