Pre-dispute Agreements to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Claims Will Be Voidable Pursuant to Federal Legislation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.02.22
On February 10, 2022, Congress passed H.R. 4445, titled the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.” The legislation would amend the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to render pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements voidable at the election of the employee for all sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. Employees will still be permitted to choose to arbitrate these claims. The legislation would also render pre-dispute employee waivers of the right to bring such claims jointly or on a class basis voidable.
Courts—not arbitrators—decide under federal law whether a claim constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault subject to H.R. 4445, even if the arbitration agreement includes a provision delegating these decisions to the arbitrator. The law will apply to any sexual harassment or sexual assault claim that arises on or after its date of enactment.
While H.R. 4445 currently awaits President Biden’s signature, there is little doubt that he will sign it. On February 1, 2022, President Biden issued a Statement of Administration Policy encouraging the passage of the bill. In anticipation of the enactment of this law, employers should review and evaluate their current policies concerning the enforcement of employment arbitration agreements to make sure such agreements are not enforced with respect to claims exempt from mandatory arbitration under federal law. Additionally, for new employee arbitration agreements, employers should consider adding a specific carve-out for sexual harassment and sexual assault claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26





