Search form

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts New York’s Bar on Agreements to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment Claims, Court Rules

By Brendan Sweeney
  • June 28, 2019

An agreement to arbitrate sexual harassment claims is enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), federal Judge Denise Cote has ruled, rejecting arguments that New York law voids such an agreement. Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-11528 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2019).

While many thought that laws in New York (and other states) prohibiting agreements to arbitrate sexual harassment claims are inconsistent with the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, Latif is one of the first decisions to address this squarely.

Background

The plaintiff, Mahmoud Latif, signed an arbitration agreement when he accepted a job with the employer. The arbitration agreement provided that it “shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with” the FAA.

Latif claimed that he was subjected to sexual harassment and that he was ultimately terminated for complaining about harassment. He filed claims under federal and state law and his former employer filed a motion to compel arbitration.

New York Law

In 2018, New York passed a statute that its sponsors described as “sweeping legislation that deals with the scourge of sexual harassment.” One provision, codified as Section 7515 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), prohibits contracts that require “the parties submit to mandatory arbitration to resolve any allegation or claim of an unlawful discriminatory practice of sexual harassment.” Latif relied primarily on CPLR 7515 to oppose the motion to compel arbitration of his sexual harassment claims.

The New York legislature had passed a bill at the end of its 2019 Legislative Session to expand this prohibition to agreements to arbitrate all discrimination claims (the Governor is expected to sign the bill into law).

New York Law Preempted by FAA

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that state laws prohibiting the use of arbitration to resolve particular types of disputes are preempted by the FAA. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 341 (2011) (“When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.”).

Quoting heavily from U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the subject, Judge Cote held that application of CPLR 7515 “would be inconsistent with the FAA.”

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that CPLR 7515 creates a “generally applicable contract defense” that is permitted by the FAA. While the law was passed as part of a package of laws that address sexual harassment, the court explained that the specific provision at issue treats arbitration agreements differently from other contracts and, thus, is preempted by the FAA.

The court also rejected the argument that New York’s interest in “transparently addressing workplace harassment” allowed the state to create “a ground in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Simply put, the court held that CPLR 7515 violates the federal requirement that arbitration agreements be treated equally as any other contract.

Latif confirms that employers that are covered by the FAA can rely on arbitration to resolve disputes over sexual harassment, notwithstanding the efforts of a state legislature to limit the claims that may be sent to arbitration.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions related to this case, implementing employee arbitration agreements, harassment policies, training for management and employees, and other preventive practices.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

Illinois Outlaws Questions about Job Applicants’ Prior Salaries

September 13, 2019

Beginning September 29, 2019, it will be against the law in Illinois for employers to ask job applicants about their prior salaries or wage history. In order to avoid fines and lawsuits, companies recruiting in Illinois should remove any questions about prior pay from their job applications and any related documents both on-line or in... Read More

August 23, 2019

New York Revises Employment Protections for Domestic Violence Victims, Adds Accommodation Obligations

August 23, 2019

New York has amended its Human Rights Law to expand protection from employment discrimination for victims of domestic violence. Signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on August 20, 2019, the new law amends the New York State Human Rights Law with respect to victims of domestic violence. It also requires employers to provide reasonable... Read More

August 22, 2019

Illinois Expands State Human Rights Act to Include Employers with One or More Employees

August 22, 2019

An amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) expands the definition of “employer” from employers with at least 15 employees to those with one or more employees. The legislation, House Bill 252, was signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 21, 2019, and enacted as Illinois Public Act 101-0430. The new law will become... Read More