Motion to compel arbitration; The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault & Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA); Sexual harassment/hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim; FedRCivP 8’s pleading standard; Whether the parties' pre-dispute arbitration agreement was unenforceable “as otherwise provided” in the EFAA; 9 USC §§ 401(4) & 402(a); Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; Whether the pre-dispute arbitration agreement was unenforceable with respect to the entire case; Johnson v Everyrealm, Inc

In an issue of first impression in this circuit, the court held that where a plaintiff brings multiple claims that include a “sexual assault dispute” or a “sexual harassment dispute” in one suit against a party with whom plaintiff has an otherwise-valid arbitration agreement, the EFAA bars arbitration as to the entire case. It also held that plaintiff-Bruce plausibly alleged a Title VII sexual harassment claim. Bruce formerly worked at defendant (referred to as A&R) as a legal assistant and alleged she was repeatedly sexually harassed by one of the lawyers, giving rise to her sexual harassment claim (which she framed as a hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII). She also asserted ADA claims for “A&R’s failure to accommodate (or participate in an interactive process regarding) her need to take sedatives to sleep, which made it difficult for her to wake up or arrive at the office in a timely manner.” She filed this suit after she was terminated. A&R moved to dismiss her sexual harassment claim and to compel arbitration of her ADA claims. The district court denied both motions, ruling that Bruce adequately stated a sexual harassment claim “and that the EFAA precluded arbitration of her entire case, including” the ADA claims. As to the motion to dismiss, the court gathered and inferred from the complaint that the lawyer in question, “who was among Bruce’s supervisors and responsible for her employment at A&R, consistently and continually directed sexualized comments at her in the presence of other employees at A&R.” The court concluded that Bruce’s complaint “plausibly alleged conduct sufficiently pervasive to sustain a hostile-work-environment claim” and survive A&R’s motion to dismiss. It then turned to the motion to compel arbitration of the ADA claims. A&R argued that only the sexual harassment claim was subject to the EFAA. But the court agreed with the district court and other lower courts that have ruled that when a case alleges a sexual harassment dispute, as defined in the EFAA, that “‘makes pre-dispute arbitration agreements unenforceable with respect to the entire case relating to that dispute.’” Section § 402(a) instructs that a pre-dispute arbitration “agreement is unenforceable ‘with respect to a case which . . . relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.’” Focusing on the word “case,” the court held that all “data point clearly in the direction of ‘case’ encompassing a plaintiff’s entire suit.” Affirmed and remanded.