Francisco Quilala filed a complaint against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (Securitas), Reynaldo De La Cruz, and Luis Castro (jointly, defendants) alleging sexual harassment and other causes of action related to his former employment with Securitas. Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was unsuccessful as the trial court determined the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402; EFAA) barred enforcement of the parties’ predispute arbitration agreement.
We affirm the trial court order denying the motion to compel arbitration. As it must, the trial court exercised its independent duty to ensure the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; FAA). This analysis required the court to evaluate whether the EFAA barred arbitration. We find no error in the court undertaking this analysis without obtaining supplemental briefing. We also find no error in its holding that Quilala stated a valid sexual harassment claim and, thus, the EFAA did not permit the parties’ dispute to be compelled to arbitration since Quilala wished to pursue his claims in court. Finally, the EFAA’s statutory language did not authorize the court to compel the non-sexual harassment claims to arbitration.
There are 0 comments