One of the more groundbreaking federal laws to arise in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement is the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). Courts continue to address the breadth of the new statute’s reach. In addition to federal laws like the EFAA, New York workers are protected by progressive state and local laws, such as the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. If you have endured unwelcome gender-related conduct in the workplace, even if it was not sexually charged in nature, you may be able to pursue a sexual harassment case, and you may be able to bring that case in court, even if you signed an arbitration agreement as part of your employment contract. To learn more about your options, you should speak to an experienced New York sexual harassment lawyer who can advise you about your circumstances.
A sexual harassment case from last month, along with another one from last year, provides important examples of how the NYSHRL and the EFAA can work together to deliver a favorable result.
In the more recent matter, the employee, D.T., was a woman who worked as an executive assistant for a Manhattan-based private equity firm. According to the assistant’s lawsuit, a “culture of sexism permeated” the firm. Allegedly, the firm’s former president once commented at a work event that “he preferred to hire women for unintellectual jobs” like executive assistant rather than “intellectually challenging roles.” Occasionally, the president asked others, including D.T., whether executive assistants should be thin or fat, according to the complaint.
The assistant also alleged that the president engaged in acts of unwanted physical contact, such as placing his hand “firmly” on her shoulder, on various occasions.
Based on all of this conduct, the assistant launched her lawsuit that asserted that the unwelcome comments, the unwanted touching, and the firm’s “culture of degrading women” rose to the level of sexual harassment. Because it amounted to sexual harassment, she argued, the EFAA precluded the firm from enforcing the mandatory arbitration clause contained in her employment contract.
The firm filed a motion to compel arbitration, but the court sided with the assistant. The court pointed out that the EFAA defines a “sexual harassment dispute” as any “dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.” To successfully invoke the EFAA, the law requires a New York employee (like D.T.) to “plausibly allege” a claim of sexual harassment or sexual assault under either the NYCHRL or NYSHRL.
Harassment Need Not Be ‘Romantic, ‘Lewd,’ or ‘Sexually Charged’
The court subsequently determined that the assistant had cleared this hurdle. In doing so, the judge made an important worker-friendly determination; namely, that the unwanted conduct that made up the foundation of a worker’s sexual harassment case under the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL did not necessarily need to be “romantic,” “lewd,” or “sexually charged.”
Last year, another Southern District judge reached the same conclusion. In that 2025 case, the court took note of the “numerous examples of sexual harassment that were not sexually charged or lewd” available from the New York City Commission on Human Rights. For example, the commission’s “Stop Sexual Harassment Act” Factsheet says that “sexual harassment” is “unwelcome verbal or physical behavior based on a person’s gender.” The factsheet makes no mention of the behavior needing to be romantic, sexual, or lewd in nature to qualify as harassment.
Last year’s opinion also noted that sexual harassment plaintiffs can proceed under federal Title VII using a hostile work environment theory, even if their cases include no evidence that the conduct was romantic, sexual, or lewd. Because the law requires that the NYCHRL be at least as broad as Title VII, the court concluded that the NYCHRL must also encompass cases that include no romantic, sexually charged, or lewd elements.
Based on that reasoning, the judge ruled that “under the NYCHRL, conduct constituting sexual harassment is unwelcome verbal or physical behavior based on a person’s gender, regardless of whether that behavior is lewd or sexual in nature.”
The judge in D.T.’s case agreed, noting that New York state courts have issued rulings instructing that the NYCHRL be given “the broadest possible interpretation” to fulfill the aim of making the NYCHRL “the most progressive in the nation.”
These rulings are important reminders of how progressive the NYCHRL is and how its breadth helps make the EFAA an especially powerful tool for New York workers. Gone are the days (to the extent they ever existed) where you need to allege that your boss tied your professional future to your willingness to provide sexual favors. Today, sexual harassment is much broader than just that. If you have questions about whether you have a viable case, talk to the knowledgeable New York sexual harassment attorneys at Phillips & Associates, PLLC. To find out more, contact us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free, confidential consultation today.