Labor & Employment Law Blog

Recently, the California Court of Appeal held that the EFAA preempts attempts under State law to compel arbitration of cases relating to a sexual harassment dispute. (Casey v. Superior Ct. of Contra Costa Cnty., No. A170650 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2025)) 

In this case, Petitioner Kristin Casey filed a FEHA lawsuit against her former employer, D.R. Horton, and one of its employees, alleging sexual harassment and other claims.  Casey’s claims included allegations that the named employee made a series of unwanted sexual remarks towards her.  D.R. Horton filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the named employee joined, arguing that parties’ arbitration agreement relied on California law, not federal law.  Casey opposed, relying on EFAA to support her position that she was not required to arbitrate her claims.  The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that EFAA was inapplicable because the parties’ choice-of-law provision in the arbitration agreement meant that California law governed their agreement.  However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal found that EFAA applied to the case and ordered the trial court to vacate its order.  Through its ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the EFAA preempts state law to compel arbitration in cases relating to sexual harassment disputes and parties cannot contract around the EFAA by way of a choice-of-law provision. 

This case illustrates the broad reach of the EFAA to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment claims brought under state law.  Employers should work with their employment counsel to assess the enforceability of arbitration agreements in cases alleging sexual harassment as courts continue to address the scope of EFAA. Employers with questions about the use of arbitration agreements may contact the authors of this post or their usual counsel at AALRR.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo