Beginning of the End: SASH Act Targets Predispute Arbitration Agreements The Beginning of the End: Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (SASH Act) amends the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit employers from enforcing predispute arbitration agreements or joint-action waivers relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes brought under federal, tribal or state law.
April 27, 2022 at 12:00 PM
7 minute read
Since the #MeToo movement began in 2017, legislators have enacted various legal reforms aimed at reducing and eliminating sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace. Many of the changes have been on the state level, including in New York. Recently, on Feb. 10, 2022, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (the SASH Act). Despite the partisan split in Congress, the SASH Act received overwhelming bipartisan support. Soon after, on March 3, 2022, President Biden signed the SASH Act into law. The SASH Act amends the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to prohibit employers from enforcing predispute arbitration agreements or joint-action waivers relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes brought under federal, tribal or state law.
|Key Terms and Purpose of the SASH Act
The SASH Act defines a predispute arbitration agreement as "any agreement to arbitrate a dispute that had not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement." A predispute joint-action waiver is defined as "an agreement [] that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, class, or collective action [] concerning a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement." The SASH Act invalidates both predispute arbitration agreements and predispute joint action waivers "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" unless "the person [or] named representative of a class or in a collective action" elects otherwise.
In other words, claimants now have the choice to bring sexual assault or sexual harassment claims in court or proceed to arbitration—notwithstanding any agreement they may have signed requiring such claims to be resolved through arbitration. Claimants may also choose to bring suit individually or as a class, even if they signed an agreement waiving their right to collective legal action. As President Biden stated prior to signing the SASH Act, "there will be cases where victims want their claims resolved in private. But some survivors will want their day in court. And that should be their choice and nobody else's choice."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGet Your Popcorn Ready: Sanctions Regulations Involving Artwork and Media Content in a Post-'Chevron' World
11 minute readHow Businesses Can Protect Themselves Given the Influx Nature of Non-Competes
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250