On August 14, 2026, the Southern District of New York issued a notable decision for employers addressing the scope of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) in Lane v. Salesforce, Inc.
As previously discussed on PERKS, the EFAA enables employees asserting sexual harassment or sexual assault claims to proceed in court despite a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with their employer.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that her female supervisor treated her less favorably than male colleagues — including unfair criticism, exclusion from communications, and placement on a performance improvement plan — and that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the treatment.
The Company moved to compel arbitration, and the plaintiff argued the EFAA barred enforcement of her arbitration agreement because her claims constitute sexual harassment and retaliation claims.
The court disagreed, holding that allegations of gender-based differential treatment —without unwelcome verbal or physical behavior directed at the plaintiff based on her gender — do not constitute “sexual harassment” for purposes of the EFAA.
The court applied the standard from Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (S.D.N.Y. 2025), which distinguishes sexual harassment as a subset of gender discrimination requiring something more than merely being “treated less well” because of one’s gender. The court also held that the plaintiff’s retaliation claims did not independently trigger the EFAA because her internal complaints described discrimination and differential treatment, rather than sexual harassment.
As previously discussed, EFAA interpretation disputes continue to make their way through the federal court.