Unless, that is, sexual harassment is in the case.
An Ohio appellate court just made that crystal clear in Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey.
The employer did what employers do. It pointed to a signed arbitration agreement and moved to compel arbitration of the employee's claims.
That used to be a strong move. Then Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. That changed everything.
The question in Hansbrough wasn't whether the plaintiff would ultimately prove harassment. It was much earlier in the case: did the complaint plausibly allege sexual harassment occurring after March 3, 2022 (the EFAA's effective date)? The court said yes.
And under Ohio's notice-pleading standard, that was enough. Once the plaintiff cleared that low bar, the EFAA applied. And once the EFAA applied, the arbitration agreement could not be enforced—not just for the harassment claim, but for the entire case.
Read that again. Not just the harassment count. The entire case.
That's the real takeaway. This wasn't a merits decision. It was a procedural one. But procedural doesn't mean unimportant. It means the fight over where the case gets decided—court versus arbitration—may now turn on how a complaint is drafted.
The court didn't need to reach a harder question—whether post-EFAA retaliation tied to pre-EFAA harassment would independently trigger the statute. The plaintiff's allegations of post-EFAA harassment made that unnecessary.
But don't miss what this means in practice. Sexual harassment claims rarely travel alone. They come bundled with retaliation, discrimination, and other statutory claims. And under the EFAA, one viable harassment allegation may keep that entire bundle in court.
Arbitration agreements no longer operate as universal shields.
If your risk analysis assumes you can push most employment disputes behind closed doors, you need to revisit that assumption. In fact, one well-pleaded harassment claim may be all it takes to blow up arbitration entirely.
An Ohio appellate court just made that crystal clear in Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey.
The employer did what employers do. It pointed to a signed arbitration agreement and moved to compel arbitration of the employee's claims.
That used to be a strong move. Then Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. That changed everything.
The question in Hansbrough wasn't whether the plaintiff would ultimately prove harassment. It was much earlier in the case: did the complaint plausibly allege sexual harassment occurring after March 3, 2022 (the EFAA's effective date)? The court said yes.
And under Ohio's notice-pleading standard, that was enough. Once the plaintiff cleared that low bar, the EFAA applied. And once the EFAA applied, the arbitration agreement could not be enforced—not just for the harassment claim, but for the entire case.
Read that again. Not just the harassment count. The entire case.
That's the real takeaway. This wasn't a merits decision. It was a procedural one. But procedural doesn't mean unimportant. It means the fight over where the case gets decided—court versus arbitration—may now turn on how a complaint is drafted.
The court didn't need to reach a harder question—whether post-EFAA retaliation tied to pre-EFAA harassment would independently trigger the statute. The plaintiff's allegations of post-EFAA harassment made that unnecessary.
But don't miss what this means in practice. Sexual harassment claims rarely travel alone. They come bundled with retaliation, discrimination, and other statutory claims. And under the EFAA, one viable harassment allegation may keep that entire bundle in court.
Arbitration agreements no longer operate as universal shields.
If your risk analysis assumes you can push most employment disputes behind closed doors, you need to revisit that assumption. In fact, one well-pleaded harassment claim may be all it takes to blow up arbitration entirely.