California Court of Appeal Holds Sexual Orientation Harassment Triggers the EFAA

Short summary

The California Court of Appeal ruled in Decloedt v. Radnet Management that sexual orientation harassment constitutes sexual harassment under FEHA, thereby triggering the EFAA's prohibition on pre-dispute arbitration. The court relied on Bostock v. Clayton County reasoning that discrimination based on sexual orientation necessarily entails discrimination based on sex. This means employers' arbitration agreements may be unenforceable when sexual orientation harassment claims are involved.

• •California Court of Appeal holds sexual orientation harassment triggers EFAA, voiding pre-dispute arbitration
• •Court applies Bostock v. Clayton County logic to harassment claims under FEHA
• •Employers should review arbitration agreements for potential EFAA exposure

Generated with AI, which can make mistakes.