Worker’s sexual assault need not be workplace-related to avoid arbitration, judge rules

Summary

A federal judge in Oregon has allowed a former employee’s discrimination and related claims to proceed, ruling that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) can bar arbitration even when the underlying sexual assault did not occur at work or involve a colleague. The plaintiff, employed by API Group Life Safety USA from October to December 2024, disclosed ongoing domestic violence and two instances of sexual assault, sought safety and pregnancy-related accommodations and was fired after requesting an accommodation following a miscarriage.

Judge Michael Simon found the EFAA’s definition of a “sexual assault dispute” contains no requirement that the employer caused, enabled or was the location of the assault. Because the worker alleged adverse employment actions tied to her status as a victim, the EFAA prevents enforcement of an arbitration agreement for those claims. The case (Polen v. API Group Life Safety USA, LLC) tests a key interpretation of the relatively new statute and could widen the circumstances under which employers cannot compel arbitration.

Key Points

Judge Michael Simon ruled the EFAA applies even when a sexual assault did not happen at work or involve a co-worker.
The plaintiff disclosed sexual assault and domestic violence, requested safety and pregnancy accommodations and was terminated after requesting an accommodation.
The court concluded the EFAA’s definition of a “sexual assault dispute” requires no causal link between the defendant and the assault or any location-based limitation.
The plaintiff’s claims include Title VII sex discrimination, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act failure-to-accommodate and Oregon-specific protections for victims of violence.
The decision contrasts with prior EFAA applications that involved workplace assaults (for example, cases against Celebrity Cruises and Chipotle) and may broaden EFAA’s reach in employment litigation.

Context and relevance

The ruling is an early, influential interpretation of the EFAA and matters for HR, employment counsel and employers who rely on arbitration clauses. If the decision is followed, more claims by employees who suffer assaults or harassment outside the workplace — but experience workplace repercussions for being victims — could avoid arbitration and proceed in court. That raises litigation and compliance risks and suggests employers should reassess arbitration policies, confidentiality clauses and how they handle disclosures of violence or assault.

Why should I read this?

Short answer: because this judgment could blow a hole in the safety net employers thought arbitration gave them. If you deal with HR policy, legal risk or employment contracts, this affects how you handle victim disclosures, accommodation requests and arbitration clauses. We’ve done the reading — you should skim the detail to spot what might need changing in your contracts and procedures.