Decloedt v. Radnet Management (CA2/1 B343963, filed 6/26/26, ord. pub. 7/7/26) Arbitration | EFAA | FEHA | Sexual Orientation Harassment – Employment Law Weekly

Decloedt v. Radnet Management (CA2/1 B343963, filed 6/26/26, ord. pub. 7/7/26) Arbitration | EFAA | FEHA | Sexual Orientation Harassment

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel plaintiff and respondent Trevor Joseph Decloedt to submit his claims to arbitration. 

Decloedt sued defendants and appellants Radnet Management, Inc.; RadNet, Inc.; Radnet Managed Imaging Services, Inc.; Joe Zambrano; and Susana Ceballos (collectively, appellants), alleging 11 state-law causes of action, including a cause of action for sexual harassment under our state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).  The trial court denied appellants’ motion to compel Decloedt to submit these claims to arbitration.  The court based its decision on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA; 9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402), which statute creates an exemption to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.).  The EFAA applies to “a dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.”  (See 9 U.S.C. § 401(4) & § 402(a).)

Appellants contend the EFAA does not apply to Decloedt’s lawsuit.  We disagree.  We hold that harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sexual harassment under FEHA, and appellants fail to show the trial court erred in finding Decloedt sufficiently pleaded a FEHA sexual harassment claim.  As to the latter point, we find Decloedt sufficiently alleged Ceballos subjected him to severe or pervasive harassment because of his homosexuality.  In sum, we affirm the denial of appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B343963.PDF

There are 0 comments

Share:

More Posts

Send Us A Message

Skip to content