Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, APC, et al. v. Christina Ramirez

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) reflects “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 98 (2012) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)). Courts must “examine with care the complaints seeking to invoke their jurisdiction in order to separate arbitrable from nonarbitrable claims.” KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. 18, 19 (2011). “[I]f a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation.” Id. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) permits plaintiffs to void an arbitration agreement “with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to [a] sexual assault dispute or [a] sexual harassment dispute.” 9 U.S.C. § 402(a). The questions presented are: Should claims within the scope of an arbitration agreement that are unrelated to sexual assault or sexual harassment continue to be arbitrated under the FAA? Put differently, can the EFAA (a limited exception to the FAA) apply to non-sexual assault and harassment claims? If the EFAA can apply to claims that are not related to sexual assault and harassment claims, is it proper for a plaintiff to amend a complaint solely to evade arbitration by invoking the EFAA?