Workforce Bulletin

Case law related to the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) continues to develop.  In late 2024, the Third Circuit seemed poised to bring further clarity as to which claims fall within the EFAA and, therefore, are shielded from pre-dispute arbitration agreements. On April 6, 2025, the Court provided guidance related to the timing of “disputes” as used in the statutory text, but remanded for further consideration of whether an arbitration agreement existed at all under New Jersey law. Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2025 WL 980309 (3d Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).

Cornelius was a longtime CVS employee who alleged that she experienced discrimination from her male supervisor. After Cornelius filed numerous internal complaints, CVS terminated her employment in November 2021. She brought a Charge to the EEOC, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CVS moved to compel arbitration pursuant to its “Arbitration Policy.” Plaintiff opposed, arguing that the EFAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to her claims.  The District Court disagreed, ruling that the EFAA did not apply to Cornelius’s claims because “her claims did not constitute a ‘sexual harassment dispute’” within the meaning of the statute, and compelled arbitration. Id. at *2.

On October 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s Opinion and Order in Mark C. Savignac and Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, et al., 19-cv-02443-RDM, addressed Title VII’s “participation clause,” in granting in part and denying in part, the law firm’s motion for summary judgment.

The court further denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, a married couple who were both formerly employed as attorneys (she resigned in 2018, he was terminated in 2019), alleged federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims based on their objections to Jones Day’s unequal parental leave policies. In the latter part of the opinion, the Court analyzed whether Savignac engaged in protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

In addition to prohibiting discrimination, Title VII’s provisions protect a covered individual from employer retaliation when the individual participates in an investigation or opposes covered unlawful conduct. These provisions—commonly referred to as the “participation clause” and “opposition clause”—are intended to encourage employees to report, and employers to address, discrimination in the workplace.