1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Pre-dispute Agreements to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Claims Will Be Voidable Pursuant to Federal Legislation

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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....