As the #MeToo movement gained momentum so, too, have efforts by individuals claiming sexual harassment to bring legal action against their alleged abusers and their employers. But many of the efforts to seek redress through the courts for sexual harassment in the workplace have been derailed by broadly worded mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.  Many employers require their employees to sign agreements that require arbitration of at least some disputes arising out of the scope of employment, and those clauses have been invoked to preclude individuals from pursuing harassment claims in court. The scope, applicability, and legality of such clauses have embroiled employers of alleged abusers and plaintiffs in complex litigation over the initial question of the forum in which such claims may proceed. At the same time, the use of mandatory arbitration to address the difficult issues of sexual harassment has come under increased scrutiny. Indeed, in the wake of the #MeToo movement, many employers decided to eliminate mandatory arbitration provisions from their employment contracts. See "Google Ends Forced Arbitration for All Employee Disputes," N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2019) www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/technology/google-forced-arbitration.html.

Concluding that mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims involving rights protected by federal statute and constitutional law is against public policy, several states enacted legislation prohibiting mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment or discrimination claims. In 2018, Maryland enacted legislation providing that "except as prohibited by federal law, a provision in an employment contract, policy, or agreement that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy to a claim that accrues in the future of sexual harassment or retaliation for reporting or asserting a right or remedy based on sexual harassment is null and void as being against the public policy of the state." See Md. Lab. & Empl. Code Section 3-715(a) (2018). In 2018, the New York State Legislature enacted C.P.L.R. Section 7515, which declared that, except where inconsistent with federal law, mandatory arbitration provisions covering sexual harassment claims were null and void. New York amended that law in 2019 to expand its terms to cover all employment discrimination claims. In 2019, New Jersey enacted a law providing that any provision in an employment contract that "waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable."