Last Updated on May 14, 2026 by MyHRConcierge

In Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP (Feb. 25, 2026), the Sixth Circuit significantly broadened the impact of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), ruling that a single viable sexual harassment claim may allow an employee to bring their entire lawsuit into court- including related employment claims such as disability discrimination that would otherwise be subject to mandatory arbitration.

The decision represents a major development for employers that rely on arbitration agreements to manage workplace disputes. It also signals continued judicial expansion of employee rights under the EFAA and highlights the growing legal risks associated with mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements.

Understanding the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA)

The EFAA, enacted in 2022, amended the Federal Arbitration Act by limiting the enforceability of pre-dispute arbitration agreements involving sexual harassment and sexual assault claims.

Before the EFAA, many employers required employees to resolve workplace disputes through private arbitration rather than litigation. The law changed that framework by allowing employees alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault to choose whether to pursue their claims in arbitration or in court.

Although the legislation clearly excluded qualifying harassment claims from mandatory arbitration, courts have continued to interpret how broadly the law applies to additional claims brought within the same lawsuit.

The Bruce v. Adams & Reese Decision

In Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP, the Sixth Circuit addressed a key question under the EFFA: whether a valid sexual harassment claim allows an employee to avoid arbitration for only that claim, or for the entire lawsuit.

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment along with additional employment-related claims, including disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employer argued that even if the sexual harassment claim proceeded in court under the EFAA, the remaining claims should still be compelled to arbitration under a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument and adopted a broader interpretation of the EFAA. The court held that when a plaintiff asserts a qualifying sexual harassment dispute under the statute, the EFAA renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to the entire case in which that dispute is brought. As a result, the employee is permitted to litigate all claims in court, including other employment claims arising from the same employment relationship.

In reaching this conclusion, the court focused on the statutory language referring to a “case” involving a sexual harassment dispute. It reasoned that Congress chose a case-wide approach rather than a claim-by-claim framework, meaning courts should not split related employment claims between arbitration and litigation once the EFAA is triggered.

The court also recognized the practical implications of dividing related claims across different forums. Employment disputes frequently involve overlapping factual issues, and separating those claims could create inefficiency, duplicative proceedings and the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Keeping all claims within a single judicial forum, the court explained, better aligns with the structure and purpose of the EFAA.

Ultimately, the decision significantly limits the enforceability of arbitration agreements in mixed-claim employment cases within the Sixth Circuit. When a sexual harassment claim meets the EFAA’s requirements, employers may be required to litigate not only that claim but also all related employment claims in court, rather than compelling arbitration of the remaining allegations.

Increased Litigation Exposure for Employers

The ruling has significant implications for employers across industries. Employment lawsuits frequently involve multiple overlapping claims, including retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, wage disputes and disability accommodation issues. Under the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation, the presence of a viable sexual harassment claim may prevent employers from enforcing arbitration agreements for the broader lawsuit.

The decision is especially important for employers operating within the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. While currently this only affects those within the Sixth Circuit, organizations nationwide should pay close attention, as other courts may adopt similar interpretations of the EFAA.

Reviewing Arbitration Agreements and Employment Policies

In light of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, employers should review arbitration agreements and employment policies to assess whether they align with current legal developments. Agreements drafted before the EFAA or before recent court decisions may no longer provide the intended level of protection or enforceability.

Organizations should also evaluate workplace harassment prevention strategies, reporting procedures, investigation protocols and manager training programs. Courts increasingly examine whether employers have implemented effective compliance measures and responded appropriately to employee complaints.

A proactive approach to policy management and workplace culture can help reduce legal exposure while supporting employee trust and organizational accountability.

Preparing for Continued Legal Changes

The Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP decision reflects the continuing evolution of workplace arbitration law and the broader movement toward increased employee protections in harassment-related disputes.

As courts continue interpreting the EFAA, employers should remain informed of emerging legal developments and work closely with employment counsel when evaluating arbitration practices and dispute resolution strategies. Businesses that regularly review policies, strengthen compliance programs and maintain responsive HR practices will be better positioned to navigate the changing legal landscape and reduce workplace risk.