Skip to main content

Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey, P.C.

Ohio Ct. App.February 26, 2026No. 115312
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Calabrese
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal from trial court denial of motion to compel arbitration and motion to stay; judgment affirmed and remanded

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court affirmed trial court's denial of defendants' motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) barred arbitration of plaintiff's entire sexual harassment case against the law firm. Case remanded for further proceedings.

Excerpt

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.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** A worker sued the law firm Marshall Dennehey for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and employment discrimination. The law firm tried to force the case into private arbitration (a process where disputes are resolved outside of court) instead of allowing it to proceed as a regular lawsuit in court. **What the Court Decided:** The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled against the law firm and upheld a lower court's decision to deny arbitration. The court found that a 2022 federal law called the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act prevents employers from forcing sexual harassment cases into arbitration. This law gives workers the right to take their sexual harassment claims to court rather than being required to resolve them through private arbitration. The case was sent back to the lower court to continue with the lawsuit. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling reinforces an important protection for workers facing sexual harassment. Many employment contracts contain arbitration clauses that typically require workplace disputes to be handled privately rather than in open court. However, this decision confirms that workers cannot be forced into arbitration for sexual harassment claims, giving them the choice to pursue their cases through the public court system where they may have better access to justice.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.