The Nourmand Law Firm, APC represents California employees in sexual harassment claims under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. If you experienced workplace sexual harassment and your employer is now demanding arbitration, an employment attorney handling sexual harassment cases can review your arbitration paperwork and explain your options. Call 800-700-WAGE for a free, confidential consultation.

What Is the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act?

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, often shortened to EFAA, is a federal statute codified at 9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402. It amended the Federal Arbitration Act and took effect on March 3, 2022. The law gives any person alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault the unilateral right to void a predispute arbitration agreement and litigate the case in court instead.

The statute uses precise language. Section 402(a) provides that “at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute,” no predispute arbitration agreement or joint-action waiver “shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.” That election belongs to the worker alone. The employer has no corresponding right to demand arbitration once the worker chooses court.

The federal statute was Congress’s response to the #MeToo movement and growing concern that mandatory arbitration was being used to bury sexual misconduct claims in confidential proceedings. Predispute arbitration is now unenforceable for these claims by federal mandate, and California courts have been among the most aggressive in enforcing the statute on behalf of workers.

Who Decides Whether the EFAA Applies — the Court or the Arbitrator?

A court — never the arbitrator — decides whether the EFAA applies to a worker’s case. Section 402(b) of the statute makes this explicit, providing that the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement is determined by a court “irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.” This is a critical protection. Many arbitration agreements contain delegation clauses that try to send threshold legal questions to the arbitrator, but the EFAA strips those clauses of effect when sexual harassment is alleged.

This means that even if the arbitration paperwork says the arbitrator decides everything, including whether the case belongs in arbitration at all, a California state or federal judge has the final word once the EFAA is invoked.

Does the EFAA Apply to All Claims in My Lawsuit, or Only the Sexual Harassment Claim?

In California, when a worker alleges sexual harassment alongside other employment claims, the EFAA exempts the entire case from arbitration. This is one of the most powerful aspects of the law as interpreted by California’s appellate courts.

The leading decision is Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc., decided October 7, 2024, by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. The worker in that case alleged sexual harassment along with wage-and-hour violations, gender discrimination, retaliation, and other claims that would normally be arbitrable. The court held that because Congress chose the word “case” rather than “claim” in the EFAA, the entire lawsuit was exempt from arbitration once a viable sexual harassment claim was alleged. The California Supreme Court denied the employer’s petition for review in December 2024, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the issue in October 2025 — leaving the Liu rule firmly in place.

Two months earlier, in Doe v. Second Street Corp., the same appellate court reached a similar conclusion involving wage-and-hour claims joined with sexual harassment allegations. And in Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., decided in 2025, the court applied the same rule to a worker who alleged sexual orientation harassment, confirming that “non-harassment” claims cannot be carved out and shipped to arbitration.

The practical consequence is significant. A California worker who experienced sexual harassment can litigate the entire employment dispute — including unpaid wages, overtime violations, retaliation, wrongful termination, and discrimination claims — in front of a jury, even if the underlying arbitration agreement is otherwise valid.

Can My Employer Use a California Choice-of-Law Clause to Get Around the EFAA?

No. The California Court of Appeal addressed this question directly in Casey v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 5th 575 (2025). The employer in Casey argued that because the arbitration agreement contained a California choice-of-law provision, only state arbitration law applied and the federal EFAA was irrelevant. The court rejected that argument and held that the EFAA preempts contrary state-law provisions, including choice-of-law clauses designed to invoke California arbitration statutes.

The ruling closed a loophole that some employers had been testing. Workers in cases such as those filed in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Riverside, San Bernardino, Fontana, Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, Sacramento, San Jose, and Oakland cannot have their sexual harassment claims rerouted into arbitration through clever contract drafting. Federal law controls, and federal law lets the worker choose court.

When Does a Sexual Harassment “Dispute” Arise for EFAA Purposes?

The EFAA applies to disputes or claims that arise or accrue on or after March 3, 2022. California courts have construed this generously in favor of workers. In Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 5th 214 (2024), the California Court of Appeal held that a “dispute” arises only when the worker asserts a right or demand and the employer takes an adversarial position — not on the date the harassment occurred. A worker who was harassed in 2021 but did not file an agency charge or lawsuit until after March 3, 2022, is still protected.

For ongoing harassment, the analysis is even more favorable. In Doe v. Second Street Corp., the court applied the continuing-violation doctrine and ruled that as long as the harassment continued past March 3, 2022, the entire course of conduct fell within the EFAA — even harassment that began years earlier. Workers who endured persistent hostile work environments do not lose EFAA protection simply because the misconduct began before the statute took effect.

What Sexual Harassment Conduct Is Covered Under the Law?

Sexual harassment under the EFAA includes conduct that violates federal, state, or tribal law prohibiting sexual harassment. In California, that means conduct that violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940(j), which prohibits harassment because of sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and pregnancy.

The covered conduct includes both quid pro quo harassment — where job benefits are conditioned on sexual conduct — and hostile work environment harassment, where unwelcome conduct based on sex is severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions. Verbal conduct, physical conduct, sexually suggestive comments, unwanted touching, displays of sexually explicit material, and gender-based ridicule can all support an EFAA claim if they meet the FEHA threshold. Quilala v. Securitas confirmed that sexual-orientation-based harassment qualifies, even when the conduct is framed as mockery rather than overt sexual advances.

A worker does not need to win the harassment claim to invoke the EFAA. Most California courts require only that the sexual harassment allegations be pled plausibly enough to survive a motion to dismiss. A plausible claim is enough to lock the case into court.

What Should California Workers Do If They Experienced Workplace Sexual Harassment?

The right next step depends on the specific facts, but several actions consistently strengthen a worker’s position:

Preserve evidence. Save text messages, emails, voicemails, photographs, witness contact information, and any written complaints to human resources. Workers who later need to prove a sexual harassment claim in court rely heavily on contemporaneous documentation. Anything stored only on a work device should be backed up to a personal device or printed before separation from employment.

File a charge with the California Civil Rights Department. Before filing a FEHA-based sexual harassment lawsuit, a worker generally must first file an administrative complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) and obtain a right-to-sue notice. The deadline to file is generally three years from the last act of harassment under FEHA. Kader highlights why this filing date matters — it can be the moment when the EFAA-covered “dispute” formally arises.

Do not sign anything new without legal review. Employers sometimes present severance agreements that contain new arbitration clauses, confidentiality provisions, or release language. Once the EFAA is in play, a worker has substantial leverage. That leverage is forfeited the moment a worker signs a poorly understood agreement.

Consult an attorney before responding to a motion to compel arbitration. If the employer files a motion to compel arbitration in a sexual harassment case, the worker has a narrow window to invoke EFAA and respond. A misstep at this stage can cost a worker the right to a jury trial.

Why the Right to Litigate Sexual Harassment Cases in Court Matters

Court litigation gives California workers protections that arbitration does not, and proceedings are public, which removes the secrecy that allowed serial harassers to be quietly recycled through workplaces for decades. Court rules permit broad discovery, including depositions of executives and access to internal records. Juries decide damages, and California juries have historically been more willing to award substantial verdicts in workplace harassment cases than private arbitrators.

Workers also retain meaningful appellate rights in court. Arbitration awards are reviewed under an extraordinarily deferential standard, and most arbitrators’ errors cannot be corrected on appeal. A jury verdict, by contrast, is subject to ordinary appellate review.

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC has handled discrimination and harassment cases throughout California for more than two decades and understands how to invoke the EFAA early and effectively to keep a worker’s case in court.

Frequently Asked Questions About Sexual Harassment Arbitration in California

Speak With a California Sexual Harassment Attorney Today

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC has represented California workers exclusively for more than 20 years, recovering millions of dollars on behalf of employees who were subjected to sexual harassment, discrimination, and other unlawful workplace conduct. The firm has obtained substantial results for hospital workers, hotel employees, security guards, warehouse workers, and other Californians across Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley, and the Bay Area. Se Habla Español.

Call 800-700-WAGE or contact The Nourmand Law Firm online to schedule a free, confidential consultation. There is no fee unless the firm recovers compensation on your behalf.

For workers who were assaulted on the job, harassed by a manager or coworker, or fired after coming forward, AB 250 California sexual assault revival rules can mean the difference between a viable case and a closed file. The Nourmand Law Firm, APC represents California employees in workplace sexual misconduct matters — including harassment claims, retaliation, and post-complaint discharge — and offers free, confidential consultations to survivors evaluating their options. If a prior matter might now be revived, an employment attorney can review the timing and the underlying conduct — call 800-700-WAGE to discuss.

What AB 250 Actually Changes

AB 250 amends California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16, the statute that governs civil claims for sexual assault committed against adults. Before the new law, many survivors who had aged out of the original deadline — often ten years from the assault, or three years from the date the survivor discovered the resulting injury — had no path forward in civil court. A previous statute, AB 2777, opened a one-year filing window in 2023 but applied only to assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2009, and only to claims against entities accused of a cover-up. Survivors of older incidents, and those who wanted to sue a perpetrator directly, were largely shut out.

The new law addresses both gaps. AB 250 California sexual assault claims may proceed regardless of when the assault occurred, as long as the survivor was 18 or older at the time. The statute also permits direct claims against the individual perpetrator, not just claims against institutions accused of concealing prior allegations. The bill was co-sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates, signaling its workplace dimension.

Which Workplace Claims Are Revived

The new filing period does not stop at the assault itself. AB 250 also revives related civil claims arising from the same underlying incident, including sexual harassment and wrongful termination suits. That is the part of the statute that matters most to California workers.

Consider a warehouse employee in Fontana who was assaulted by a supervisor in 2014, complained to human resources, and was terminated weeks later. Under prior law, both the assault claim and the retaliatory termination claim would likely have been time-barred years ago. Under AB 250, both may be revived as long as the survivor files between January 1, 2026 and December 31, 2027. The same logic reaches a hotel worker in Long Beach forced out in 2017, an agricultural worker in Bakersfield assaulted by a crew leader in 2010, or a retail employee in San Jose who quit under hostile conditions in 2015.

The statute does not revive every harassment claim — only those tied to an underlying sexual assault. Unwelcome comments, leering, or non-physical hostile environment conduct that did not involve assault remain governed by the standard three-year FEHA filing deadline under Government Code § 12960.

Who Can Be Sued Under the Revival Window

Under AB 250, a survivor may pursue revived claims against two groups. The individual perpetrator may be sued directly — and the survivor does not need to allege that anyone covered up the assault to bring that claim. Private entities, including employers, hotels, hospitals, and similar institutions, may also be sued when the survivor alleges the entity is legally responsible for damages and that the entity or its agents covered up or attempted to cover up a previous instance or allegation of sexual assault by the same perpetrator.

The cover-up element applies only to entity claims. Failing to allege a cover-up as to one company does not affect the revival of claims against any other party, including the perpetrator. AB 250 does not apply to public entities — government employers, public schools, and public universities remain subject to the California Government Claims Act, which can require an administrative claim within six months. A survivor with a potential claim against a public employer should consult an attorney immediately rather than rely on the new lookback period.

How to Use the Window — Practical Steps for California Workers

If you believe AB 250 may apply to your situation, take these steps before the December 31, 2027 deadline.

Gather what you have. Old text messages, emails, internal complaint records, HR correspondence, performance reviews from before and after the incident, and termination paperwork all become evidence. A diary entry made at the time of the assault carries significant weight, as do written communications with coworkers who witnessed the conduct.

Identify potential cover-up evidence. For claims against an employer, the survivor will need to allege facts suggesting the company concealed prior allegations involving the same perpetrator. Patterns of similar complaints from other employees, settlement agreements with non-disclosure clauses, or HR investigations that produced no consequences can support that element.

Do not assume the deadline will be extended. California has not historically extended sexual assault revival windows — AB 2777’s window closed on December 31, 2023 without renewal. Survivors who delay until late 2027 risk losing the chance to file.

Talk to a lawyer before signing anything. Some employers contact former workers with settlement offers or new releases. A worker who already signed a severance agreement years ago may still have viable claims depending on the language, and any current release request should be reviewed by counsel before signing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does AB 250 apply if I was a minor when the assault occurred? No. AB 250 covers assaults that occurred on or after the survivor’s 18th birthday. Childhood sexual abuse claims are governed by separate revival rules under California law, which generally allow survivors to file until age 40 or within five years of discovery, whichever is later.

Can I bring a revived claim if I already settled my case years ago? Generally no. A claim that was previously litigated to final judgment or resolved through a written settlement agreement is not eligible. The new filing window applies to claims that were time-barred but never resolved on the merits.

What if the assault happened decades ago and most witnesses are gone? Older claims face evidentiary challenges, but they are not automatically barred. California courts have allowed revived matters to proceed on the strength of contemporaneous documentation, corroborating accounts from other survivors, and patterns of institutional conduct. A lawyer can evaluate what evidence is realistically available.

Move Before the Window Closes

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC has spent more than 20 years fighting for California workers who experienced sexual misconduct on the job — recovering millions in settlements and verdicts for hospital staff, hotel employees, security guards, agricultural laborers, and warehouse workers across the state. Survivors who believe AB 250 California sexual assault revival rules may apply to their workplace experience should not delay until the deadline approaches. Call 800-700-WAGE or contact the firm online to schedule a free, confidential consultation.

The employee in this case alleged that a high-ranking administrator made repeated unwanted advances and retaliated when those advances were rejected. She claimed the retaliation affected her ability to run her program and harmed her career. The jury agreed, awarding a large sum in noneconomic damages. After the trial, the employer asked the court to reduce the award or order a new trial. Those requests were denied, but the appellate court reversed that outcome due to prejudicial evidence and improperly admitted testimony that influenced the jury.

California Courts Require Relevant and Fairly Presented Evidence

Evidence must directly support the claims at issue and be admitted in a way that does not unfairly sway the jury. In this case, the appellate court found that the trial judge allowed multiple pieces of evidence that lacked a clear connection to the employee’s specific experiences. These included newspaper articles from decades ago and unrelated misdemeanor convictions belonging to the administrator. The judge also admitted testimony from a student who had filed a harassment complaint against a different administrator altogether.

These materials, according to the appellate court, introduced bias into the trial without shedding light on the facts relevant to the employee’s claims. California courts follow the Evidence Code closely, including Section 352, which allows judges to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. In employment cases, this standard protects both sides from assumptions and distractions that do not belong in a fair trial. Employees pursuing claims should understand that success on appeal may depend on how cleanly the trial was conducted.

Emotional Harm Damages Must Reflect the Record, Not Emotion Alone

In harassment and retaliation cases, juries may award noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. There is no fixed formula for these damages, but the award must be supported by testimony and proportional to the experiences described. In this matter, the $10 million award was questioned due to both its size and the trial court’s conduct during post-trial proceedings.

Appellate judges emphasized that a fair damages award must rest on a clear connection between the harm described and the sum awarded. Although emotional harm is profoundly personal and challenging to measure, juries are not permitted to base significant awards solely on their reaction to unrelated allegations or misconduct not directly proven. Employees can still recover substantial damages for workplace abuse, but these awards must withstand careful review if they are challenged on appeal.

Trial Judge’s Conduct Led to Further Legal Complications

Even after the jury issued its verdict, problems continued. During post-trial motions, the trial judge made inappropriate and irrelevant remarks, leading to formal disqualification for cause. This development added weight to the employer’s appeal and further undermined the trial’s outcome. California law requires judges to remain neutral and focus solely on the legal and factual issues in the case. Any conduct suggesting bias can threaten the integrity of the process and lead to a reversal.

Employees deserve a fair trial where the focus stays on the facts and the law. While misconduct by a supervisor or manager may violate FEHA, the truth must be presented through proper channels and in accordance with the rules of evidence. Anything less puts even a strong case at risk of being overturned, especially when extensive damages are awarded.

Talk to a California Employment Attorney Who Knows How to Protect Your Case

If you have faced harassment, retaliation, or any other workplace misconduct, you need legal guidance that prepares your case for every stage, including trial and possible appeal. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we represent employees across California in holding employers accountable for unlawful conduct. We work to build a case grounded in clear, admissible evidence and make sure your voice is heard without giving your employer an opening to challenge your claim on technical grounds.

Call The Nourmand Law Firm today at (310) 553-3600 to speak with an experienced California employment attorney. We are here to protect your rights and help you move forward.

What is a Hostile Work Environment?

A hostile work environment occurs when an employee is subjected to discriminatory harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working atmosphere. This harassment can be based on various protected characteristics, such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. It’s important to note that occasional teasing or isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, do not typically qualify as a hostile work environment. The behavior must be so frequent or severe that it interferes with the employee’s ability to perform their job.

How Do You Prove a Hostile Work Environment?

Proving a hostile work environment claim involves demonstrating several key elements:

Protected Characteristic: You must show that you are a member of a protected class under California law. This includes race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age (40 and older), disability, and more.

Unwelcome Conduct: The behavior in question must be unwelcome. This means that you did not invite or accept the harassment, and you found it offensive or undesirable.

Severe or Pervasive Conduct: The conduct must be either severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. This can include actions such as verbal harassment, physical threats, or unwelcome physical contact.

Affect on Work Performance: The hostile behavior must significantly interfere with your work performance or create an intimidating or abusive work environment. This can be shown through evidence that the harassment made it difficult for you to do your job effectively.

Employer Liability: You must show that your employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. This can involve demonstrating that you reported the harassment and your employer did not address it adequately.

Steps to Take if You Believe You’re Experiencing a Hostile Work Environment

If you think you are experiencing a hostile work environment, it is crucial to take action to protect your rights and build a strong case. Here are some steps you can follow:

Document the Harassment: Keep detailed records of the harassment, including dates, times, locations, witnesses, and descriptions of the incidents. This documentation will be critical evidence in your claim.

Report the Harassment: Follow your company’s procedures for reporting harassment. Inform your supervisor, human resources department, or another appropriate person within your organization. Make sure to keep copies of any complaints or reports you submit.

Seek Support: Talk to trusted colleagues, friends, or family members about your situation. They can provide emotional support and may also serve as witnesses if they have observed the harassment.

Consult an Attorney: If the harassment continues or your employer does not take appropriate action, consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law. They can help you understand your legal options and guide you through the process of filing a claim.

Speak with a California Employment Attorney To Learn More About Your Rights

Proving a hostile work environment claim under California law can be complex, but understanding the key elements and taking the right steps can help you build a strong case. Remember, you have the right to work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. If you’re facing a hostile work environment, take action to protect your rights and seek the justice you deserve. To learn more, give the Nourmand Law Firm, APC a call at 800-700-WAGE or through our secure online contact form.

According to the opinion, the plaintiff sued her employer for sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. After her claim was denied by a lower court, the plaintiff appealed and hoped that a higher court would grant her a more favorable verdict.

The plaintiff was one of only three women serving as a lead public safety dispatcher for the city in which she resided. As a SWAT team member, the plaintiff was consistently subjected to sexually explicit jokes, nudity, and simulated sexual acts. What’s more, the plaintiff felt as if she could not refuse to participate in the sexually explicit culture, given it seemed necessary for her to advance as a member of the team.

The plaintiff was demoted 12 years into her employment, and she alleged in her case that this demotion was because the department wanted to replace her with someone who would not question or call attention to the problematic culture in the work environment. In considering her case, the court looked at all of the facts related to the plaintiff’s employment, including the flirtatious behavior and physical conduct that the plaintiff’s supervisor directed towards her. At times, the supervisor in question would give the plaintiff hugs and massages, despite her discomfort with the physical contact.

Ultimately, however, the court decided that the plaintiff had not conclusively established that there was a link between her rejection of the sexually explicit conduct and the adverse employment action she faced as a SWAT team member. While it was true both that the plaintiff experienced sexual harassment and that she was ultimately demoted, there was no proof that the two events were connected in such a way that one caused the other.

Because the plaintiff could not establish this necessary causal link, her appeal was denied.

Have You Faced Sexual Harassment in the Workplace?

If you have been the victim of sexual harassment at your job in California, give us a call at the Nourmand Law Firm. We understand that bringing forward a successful claim involves not only presenting necessary facts but also arguing for the appropriate law to be applied. To give yourself the highest likelihood of walking away with your fair share of compensation, it is crucial that you speak with one of our qualified attorneys. We are dedicated to fighting for California workers’ rights, and we will be dedicated to fighting for you. For a free, no-obligation consultation, call us at 310-553-3600.

The facts of the case indicate that the defendant was accused of sexually harassing one of his female employees, repeatedly making obscene comments and touching her in inappropriate ways. After several years of this behavior, the plaintiff brought the defendant to court, and just before the trial began, the defendant fired the attorneys that were working on his case.

Without an attorney, the defendant elected to represent himself at trial, deciding he did not need counsel in order to get his point across. During the trial itself, the defendant did not obey any of the court’s rules and regulations. He shouted at prospective jurors, made faces during the plaintiff’s testimony, yelled at the judge, threatened the defendant’s lawyer, and routinely interrupted witnesses while they were speaking.

The court warned the defendant that he was obligated to maintain orderly conduct; however, despite multiple warnings, the defendant continued to interrupt the proceedings by shouting and causing a scene. At that point, the court decided that the defendant had lost his ability to represent himself, and it told the defendant that he could not return to trial until he had retained an attorney to represent him.

When the defendant lost the trial, he appealed, and one of his arguments was that he should have been allowed to represent himself without counsel present. The court of appeals agreed that normally, parties are able to appear in court without an attorney if they choose to do so. However, said the court, no fair trial could be conducted under the circumstances that the defendant created.

It was clear that the defendant intended to disrupt trial, and he blatantly violated the court’s rules of conduct. The lower court was correct in deciding that the defendant’s self-representation was getting in the way of the plaintiff’s right to access the court system. Thus, given these extreme circumstances, the lower court was within its rights to deny the defendant the right to appear in court without representation. The defendant’s appeal was denied.

Deciding On Your Representation in an Employment Discrimination Case

If you have faced sexual harassment at work in California, know that we at the Nourmand Law Firm are on your side. Through every phase of the process, we will stand by you so that you know what to expect, how to proceed, and how to present the strongest case possible moving forward. We understand that fighting employment discrimination cases can be a daunting process, but with our attorneys on your team, you will have everything you need. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

In 2019, the California legislature passed a law (signed by Governor Newsom), commonly known as the “Silence No More Act.” this legislation forbade employers from requiring a confidentiality or non-disparagement clause as part of the settlement of an employee’s claim of harassment or discrimination based upon sex. The passage of this law prevented employers from essentially buying the silence of sexual harassment and discrimination victims, instead of allowing them to share their stories and warn others about potentially harmful and hostile work environments.

A recently published review of California employment law changes in 2021 discusses how the Silence No More Act provisions have been extended to protect other classes of people complaining of workplace discrimination or harassment. The new legislation states that an employer may not require silence from an employee/complainant who alleges any type of workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The passage of this new law expands the rights of aggrieved California employees and prevents employers from refusing to pay settlement amounts after a former employee is caught discussing their experiences in public or with the media.

The recent changes to the Silence No More Act will hopefully encourage more victims of workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation to come forward and also discuss their experiences with the greater public. Without transparency and honest discussion, it is hard to hold companies accountable for harmful workplace cultures that may encourage or allow discrimination and harassment. Moving forward, California lawmakers appear to be protecting employees’ rights from unlawful treatment by their bosses and management.

Victims of Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Should Be Listened To

If you or a loved one has been a victim of workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, your employer may have an interest in keeping your story from going public. Victims of unfair treatment in the workplace should not have to choose between being compensated for their losses and speaking out about the unfair treatment. With the passage of the modifications to the Silence No More Act, employees will not have to make this choice. Unfortunately, employers and corporations may not be pleased with the new law, and some will undoubtedly refuse to follow it. If you have been harassed or discriminated against, seeking a strong California employment law attorney to help with your claim can ensure that your employer is required to follow the law. The qualified California employment lawyers at the Nourmand Law Firm will assist you with your claim, and help you be sure you’re not being asked to sign away any rights or protections that have been enshrined in California law. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

According to their claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the women say the organization’s leadership abruptly terminated or forced them to leave after they reported misconduct.

United Way Worldwide accused of “bullying” behavior

Lisa Bowman filed an EEOC claim in March 2020 after she was let go two months earlier. The former chief marketing officer made an official complaint to the nonprofit in 2019 over a male colleague’s behavior, saying he ogled and made inappropriate comments about her body.

Bowman says after her complaint, her standing at the organization began to plummet until CEO Brian Gallagher told her in January that he no longer needed her, even though she had won a coveted marketing award in 2019.

Another former female executive, who asked HuffPost to conceal her identity, says she complained on behalf of a woman who worked for her about the same man Bowman reported. She says she began experiencing a backlash soon after, and she ultimately left United Way for another job as a result.

The third case involves the organization’s former vice president for labor participation. Ana Avendano claims she was fired after AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka complained to Gallagher over her work to stop sexual harassment within the labor workforce.

Avendano’s EEOC complaint says she had spent years uncovering sexual harassment in the network and appeared to have the full support of Gallagher and other top officials until her actions led Trumka to complain. Avendano says she was fired after being the target of misconduct complaints herself, involving her treatment of others. She believes it was in retaliation for her complaints.

Retaliation causes devastating consequences

According to the EEOC, retaliation is the No. 1 workplace discrimination complaint. If you are the target of harassment or other illegal behavior, it is advisable to work with an aggressive and experienced employment attorney who can help you prove your claim. To be successful, you must show you were engaged in a protected activity, you suffered an adverse action, and that those two factors are related.

The National Women’s Law Center report says seven out of 10 workers, who reported being sexually harassed at work, faced consequences, up to and including being fired. The study analyzed more than 3,000 requests for legal help from the Law Center’s Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund between January 2018 and April 2020.

Study findings show rampant harassment continues

While the most glaring result in the Law Center’s study shows a shocking number of retaliation claims, the survey finds workplace harassment affects workers’ economic, physical and financial well-being. Other key findings include:

• 36% said they were fired for reporting harassment
• 19% experienced poor job performance reviews or were otherwise treated poorly
• 64% reported harassment to their employers instead of law enforcement or the government
• 29% said nothing was done about their complaint
• 19% said harassment damaged their mental health

More than half of the people identified a supervisor as the harasser.

The pandemic increases fears over reporting harassment

Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund Director Sharyn Tejani told the Associated Press that the coronavirus presents many complications over reporting harassment. With unemployment extremely high, fewer people report harassment over the fear of losing their job or facing other forms of retaliation.

Due to those concerns, unscrupulous employers and supervisors gain more power knowing many workers are too afraid to report deplorable behavior in the workplace. However, the study shows some positive news in that more workers are coming forward to report harassment.

Wells Fargo has made the news many times in recent years, often due to questionable corporate practices. However, they are currently in the news for doing something that could revolutionize the rights of workers in the banking and finance industry. Wells Fargo has decided to get rid of its mandatory arbitration clauses for the broader protection of their workers.

Forced arbitration is the standard in many professions

Given how lucrative finance can be, banks are always keen to avoid any issues that could diminish their income or tarnish their reputations. Historically, finance has been a boys’ club, although one can now see increased diversity among financial professionals. Still, there is an ongoing risk of sexual harassment for workers of all backgrounds and genders in any field, including banking and finance.

Banks have historically minimized the risk of harassment claims brought by staff by including forced arbitration clauses in their employment contracts. These clauses prevent workers from filing lawsuits in court and giving up their right to a jury trial against their employer and instead forcing the employees to go to arbitration before a retired judge or attorney that is being paid by the employer which has the repeat player syndrome among other disadvantages for the employees.

How forced arbitration hurts workers with valid claims

In theory, arbitration involves individuals experiencing a conflict working with a neutral third party who creates a resolution that binds those involved in the conflict. The problem with forced arbitration clauses when it comes to workplace sexual harassment or any employment disputes, among other things, is that the employer is often the one with the pre-existing relationship with the arbitration company providing services.

The arbitrators may therefore be less neutral than they should really be. Additionally, it is often negative publicity or the threat thereof that motivates a business to enforce its sexual harassment and discrimination policies.

Private arbitration removes the potential of damage to the business’s reputation, which may destroy any incentive for the company to hear out and support the workers experiencing harassment. Keeping things quiet allows high-ranking abusers and harassers to stay on the job, potentially making money for the company while mistreating workers.

The removal of forced arbitration opens up legal pathways for victims

When an employment contract mandates arbitration as the resolution for sexual harassment claims or other employment disputes, the result may be that fewer people bring claims, as they assume they will not receive a fair hearing.

With the removal of the forced arbitration requirement from Wells Fargo employment contracts, the company potentially makes itself a better place for women, minorities, and all employees to work while also challenging an accepted standard in the financial industry that benefits no one but those with vested power.