No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the employer's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff's sexual harassment claims fall within the scope of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which exempts such disputes from arbitration agreements.
Arbitration; arbitrability; motion to compel arbitration; motion to stay; Ohio Arbitration Act; Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"); interstate commerce; Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"); Franken Amendment; sexual harassment; hostile environment; employment discrimination; sexual-harassment dispute; standard of review; notice pleading; 9 U.S.C. 3; 9 U.S.C. 4; 9 U.S.C. 401; 9 U.S.C. 402; 48 C.F.R. 222.7402; R.C. 2711.02; R.C. 2711.03; R.C. 4112.01; R.C. 4112.02; Civ.R. 8; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); App.R. 3(C)(2); App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). Judgment affirmed and remanded. The trial court correctly denied defendants-appellants' motion to stay and compel arbitration. The EFAA barred arbitration of plaintiff-appellee's entire case against his former law firm and the managing attorney of the firm's Cleveland, Ohio office. Reviewing the complaint de novo under Ohio's notice-pleading standard, plaintiff-appellee alleged facts occurring after the effective date of the EFAA that, if true, would support a claim of sexual harassment under Ohio law. In addition to some post-EFAA remarks being sexual in nature, hostile environment sexual harassment under Ohio law does not require comments and behavior to be explicitly sexual in nature and can occur when abuse is directed at an employee because of that employee's sex. The trial court also correctly concluded that if the EFAA renders an arbitration agreement unenforceable, the bar to arbitration applies to the entire case, not merely claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Plaintiff-appellee's argument in the alternative, that defendants-appellants had waived their right to seek an order compelling arbitration by coupling their motion to compel with a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, was moot.
Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey, P.C. — Case Summary
What Happened
An employee filed a lawsuit against their employer, Marshall Dennehey, P.C., claiming sexual harassment, hostile work conditions, unfair treatment due to their identity, and wrongful discharge. The employer tried to force the case into private arbitration (a private process instead of court) based on an agreement the employee had signed.
What the Court Decided
Ohio's appeals court sided with the employee. The court ruled that sexual harassment claims cannot be forced into arbitration under a federal law called the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). Because the employee's complaints involved sexual harassment, they had the right to pursue their case in court rather than through the employer's private arbitration process.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects employees who experience sexual harassment. Even if you've signed an arbitration agreement with your employer, you cannot be forced to handle sexual harassment claims privately. You have the right to take these claims to court, where there is public accountability and standard legal procedures.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.