Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with sexual harassment, (Feb 14, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent sexual harassment decisions of interest to the labor and employment community.

N.D. Cal.:Citing EFAA, court denies arbitration of former CFO’s sexual harassment claims. A former CFO at a clinical drug development company alleged she was sidelined and subjected to gender-based discrimination—including comments that she was “too aggressive”—and was pressured to reconsider her role following a domestic violence incident and subsequent request for accommodations. After the CFO sued the company, alleging sex discrimination and creation of a hostile work environment in violation of California law, and discrimination and retaliation against a victim of domestic violence under California and New York law, among other things, the company moved to compel arbitration. The court denied the motion, finding the claims fell under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Harassment Act (EFAA) due to a “plausible sexual harassment claim under California law,” and allowed the former employee to amend her complaint to include claims under New York law. The company again moved to compel arbitration, claiming that “the New York claims are not covered by the EFAA.” Upon review, the court found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged sexual harassment under both the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and denied the motion (Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc., No. 24-cv-01368-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2025)).

N.D. Ill.: Bus driver alleged sexual harassment by coworker, poor response by management. A bus operator employed by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) alleged that she was inappropriately touched and sexually assaulted by a coworker. In September 2019, the coworker grabbed her forearm and made unsolicited compliments. Two months later, the coworker grabbed her buttocks near her genitalia and made sexually suggestive remarks. The operator reported these incidents to her supervisors, who failed to respond. The bus operator reported these actions to the EEO Unit, the coworker was discharged, and two supervisors were found to have violated the CTA’s sexual harassment policy. After the sexual harassment incident, the bus operator suffered anxiety, and per a psychologist’s recommendation, did not return to work until January 2020. The bus driver sued the CTA alleging sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The CTA moved for summary judgment, arguing that the incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment and that there was no basis for employer liability. The court, however, denied the motion as to the sexual harassment claim, finding that a reasonable juror could conclude that the conduct was sufficiently severe and that the CTA was negligent in addressing the harassment. However, the court granted summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim, determining that the bus operator did not experience an adverse employment action (Tubbs v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 1:20-cv-00695 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2024)).

N.D.N.Y.: Intern alleged sexual harassment by coworker, retaliation by employer. A part-time student intern at the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) alleged hostile work environment and retaliation after engaging in a series of flirtatious and sexually charged Facebook messages with a coworker, who later sent her an unsolicited explicit photo. The intern reported the harassment months later, after which DFAS initiated an investigation, resulting in a seven-day suspension of the coworker. The intern also claimed retaliation when she was not selected for a full-time position and was assigned a cubicle near the coworker. The intern sued DFAS through the Secretary of Defense alleging hostile work environment, discriminatory failure to promote, and retaliation under Title VII. DFAS moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that the hostile work environment claim failed, as “DFAS had no knowledge of the alleged harassment, and that it took appropriate measures to stop future harassment as soon as [the intern] reported it.” Regarding the retaliation claims, the court concluded that the intern could not demonstrate a causal connection between DFAS’s failure to hire the intern and her protected conduct, as the decisionmakers were unaware of her harassment allegations and she failed to show pretext. The cubicle location claim failed for lack of pretext as well (Pachura v. Austin, No. 6:21-cv-00316-AMN-MJK (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2025)).

S.D.N.Y.: Court partially grants sealing requests in sexual misconduct case involving Fox News, journalist. A former Fox News employee accused a former Fox News journalist of engaging in a non-consensual and violent sexual relationship. The accuser claimed that the network was complicit by failing to act on complaints and retaliating against her. She sued the network and her former colleague alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, sex trafficking, and rape. Both Fox News and the journalist moved for summary judgment, and the parties moved to seal or redact sensitive information, including third-party identities, explicit messages, and photographs. The court determined that while certain privacy interests justified sealing, such as third-party identities and explicit photographs, the presumption of public access required unsealing explicit text messages between the parties and a declaration detailing a third-party relationship. The court found these documents directly relevant to the case’s merits. Identifying information of third-party women, Fox News employees, and nonparties remain redacted (Eckhart v Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-05593-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Dec 2, 2024)).

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Arbitration EvidenceDiscovery Procedure