logo
Former Menards worker can arbitrate claim despite Ending Forced Arbitration Act, 6th Circuit says

Former Menards worker can arbitrate claim despite Ending Forced Arbitration Act, 6th Circuit says

Yahoo20-05-2025

This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter.
A former forklift driver for home improvement chain Menards is not exempt from arbitrating her sex harassment claim under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) because she 'repeatedly and unequivocally told the district court that the arbitration agreement applied to this dispute,' the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held May 12.
Per court documents in Scroggins v. Menard, Inc., the driver worked in Ohio. She alleged that several months into the job, an assistant plant manager slammed a door in her face, disparagingly asking if he was 'supposed to hold a door open for you because you are a woman?' He later allegedly yelled at her in an attempt to intimidate her and interfere with her work, then followed her out of the office continuing to yell until a co-worker intervened, the lawsuit said.
The driver alleged she reported these incidents to HR but no action was taken and she was fired shortly thereafter. She sued Menards, alleging sex harassment in violation of Ohio law, among other things. Menards moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration agreement. The district court denied the motion based on the EFAA. The 6th Circuit reversed and ordered the court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration.
The EFAA provides that, ''at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute,' a preexisting arbitration agreement need not control the forum and manner of dispute resolution,' the 6th Circuit explained.
Here, the forklift driver repeatedly told district court that the arbitration agreement she signed was valid, enforceable and applied to her claims against Menards, the appeals panel noted.
However, without notice to or input from the parties, the district court raised the EFAA on its own initiative, the 6th Circuit said. The lower court then decided the statute applied and the lawsuit should be stayed, without explaining why the driver's concessions should be disregarded, the appeals panel added.
In overriding the driver's deliberate waiver of the EFAA, the district court abused its discretion, and the case had to be stayed in favor of arbitration, the 6th Circuit held. The circuit covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
Although the ruling focused mostly on legal strategy, the case also reminds employers how the EFAA can affect enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements with respect to sexual harassment claims.
Signed into law by former President Joe Biden in March 2022, the EFAA prohibits forced arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims, allowing, as one of its primary goals, alleged victims to speak publicly about their experiences.
In at least two recent cases, employees subject to mandatory arbitration agreements were able to bring their sexual assault claims to court. In April 2024, citing the EFAA, a Texas appeals court refused to require a participant on the Netflix show 'Love is Blind' to arbitrate her claim that a fellow participant sexually assaulted her.
A few months later, in August 2024, the 8th Circuit became the first federal court of appeals to apply the EFAA to deny a motion to compel arbitration of an employee's sexual assault claim. The case involved a Chipotle employee who alleged a co-worker sexually assaulted her in the restaurant's bathroom.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets
Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets

Associated Press

time3 hours ago

  • Associated Press

Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets

LACONIA, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant told a New Hampshire jury Wednesday that he doesn't regret sending voters robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic former President Joe Biden and that he's confident he didn't break the law. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, has long admitted to orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before New Hampshire's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors allege, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who faces decades in prison if convicted of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate, said his goal was to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year's resolution to take action. 'This is going to be my one good deed this year,' he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court. He said his goal wasn't to influence an election, because he didn't consider the primary a real election. At Biden's request, the Democratic National Committee dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the 2024 nominating calendar but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in. Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll unsanctioned by the DNC. At the time the calls went out, voters were disenfranchised, he said. Asked by his attorney, Tom Reid, whether he did anything illegal, Kramer said, 'I'm positive I did not.' Later, he said he had no regrets and that his actions likely spurred AI regulations in multiple states. Kramer, who will be questioned by prosecutors Thursday, also faces a $6 million fine by the Federal Communications Commission but told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he won't pay it. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement in August. The robocalls appeared to come from a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, Kathy Sullivan, and told voters to call her number to be removed from the call list. On the witness stand earlier Wednesday, Sullivan said she was confused and then outraged after speaking to one of the recipients and later hearing the message. 'I hung up the phone and said, 'There is something really crazy going on,'' she said. 'Someone is trying to suppress the vote for Biden. I can't believe this is happening.' Months later, she got a call from Kramer in which he said he used her number because he knew she would contact law enforcement and the media. He also described his motive — highlighting AI's potential dangers — but she didn't believe him, she testified. 'My sense was he was trying to convince me that he'd done this defensible, good thing,' she said. 'I'm listening to this thinking to myself, 'What does he thing I am, stupid?' He tried to suppress the vote.'

Map Shows New ICE Arrests by Country of Citizenship
Map Shows New ICE Arrests by Country of Citizenship

Newsweek

time8 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Map Shows New ICE Arrests by Country of Citizenship

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Newly released statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documented 26,606 arrests between October and December 2024. Drawing on data from the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics dashboard, Newsweek has created this map to highlight the countries of citizenship of those detained. The latest figures available under former President Joe Biden's administration showed that individuals from Mexico accounted for more than 40 percent of those arrested, making it the single largest national group during this period. Newly released statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documented 26,606 arrests between October and December 2024. Newly released statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documented 26,606 arrests between October and December 2024. ICE Why It Matters President Donald Trump's hard-line immigration agenda has thrust ICE into the forefront of the national conversation surrounding immigration enforcement. Since the beginning of Trump's second term, thousands of suspected undocumented migrants have been arrested. The administration has empowered ICE and expanded its enforcement remit, with it now able to conduct raids in or near sensitive locations such as churches, hospitals, and schools. Critics argue that these immigration raids instill fear in vulnerable communities and may infringe on constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concerns over warrantless arrests, unauthorized data collection, and detentions without probable cause could lead to legal challenges over the balance between enforcement and individual rights. What To Know The top countries of citizenship among those arrested were overwhelmingly from Latin America, with Mexico leading by a wide margin at 11,586 arrests. This was followed by Guatemala (3,202), Honduras (3,167), El Salvador (1,230), and Nicaragua (1,141). Other notable countries included Venezuela (965), Ecuador (796), Colombia (419), Brazil (349), and Peru (298). Outside Latin America, arrests included individuals from China (171), Romania (115), Russia (57), the United Kingdom (25), and Canada (23). Data shows insight into the national scope of ICE operations amid ongoing political attention on immigration enforcement in the United States. ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division manages all aspects of the federal immigration enforcement process within the United States, including identification, arrest, detention, and removal of non-citizens who are subject to deportation or who are unlawfully present. The agency's statistics include individuals arrested for criminal convictions in the U.S., those with pending charges, and people who violated U.S. immigration laws, such as visa overstays. The most recent quarter's data appears consistent with these broader trends, indicating continued high arrest rates for citizens from Mexico and Central American countries. Following arrest, ICE may detain undocumented immigrants in civil immigration custody, transfer them for removal proceedings, or manage cases through the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which uses GPS monitoring, facial recognition, and telephonic reporting. The majority of recent detainees came via transfers from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) following border arrests, per ICE. A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted June 4–6 found that 54 percent of Americans approve of Trump's deportation policy. While over 50 percent of Americans say they support Trump's overall goals on deportation, 56 percent disapprove of how those goals are being carried out. Asked who the administration is prioritizing for removal, 53 percent said "dangerous criminals," while 47 percent believe the focus is on people who are not dangerous. Many Americans also say Trump's tactics have gone further than they expected. Forty-nine percent believe he is attempting to deport more people than he suggested during the campaign; only 10 percent say fewer, and 41 percent think the numbers are about the same. What People Are Saying ICE said in a post on X: "ICE enforces immigration law." White House press secretary Karine Leavitt said at a briefing, "To foreign nationals who are thinking about trying to illegally enter the United States—think again. Under this president, you will be detained, and you will be deported. Every day, Americans are safer because of the violent criminals that President Trump's administration is removing from our communities." What Happens Next ICE arrests by country of citizenship will likely remain under close scrutiny, with further statistical updates expected as the agency continues ramping up enforcement actions across the United States in the coming months.

Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz
Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz

Yahoo

time21 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz

This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A Black job applicant who alleged that gas station chain Sheetz disproportionately screened out Black, Native American, Alaskan Native and multiracial applicants moved to continue his case June 5 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission abandoned it. EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2024 alleging that Sheetz maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for past criminal convictions and rejected those with such records. This practice violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC said in a press release, because it had a disparate impact on applicants of certain racial backgrounds. However, the agency moved to have the case dismissed last week because it determined that the disparate-impact claims would conflict with President Donald Trump's April 23 executive order directing agencies to cease enforcement of such claims. EEOC asked the court to defer dismissal of its claims by 60 days to allow the commission to notify class members so that they could obtain private representation. The legality of Trump's executive order on disparate-impact claims proved contentious, with one of EEOC's own administrative judges calling the order 'highly illegal.' But the June 5 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is one of the first examples in which the order has been put into practice. Trump said the end of disparate-impact liability enforcement was necessary because it inhibited businesses from hiring applicants on the basis of merit and skill. He also said that disparate-impact liability is unconstitutional and 'threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.' The push to end disparate-impact liability is one of the goals stated by the conservative Heritage Foundation in its 'Project 2025' presidential transition document. The organization wrote that the concept should be thrown out because under disparate-impact theory, 'discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities.' That logic has been met with resistance by former Democratic officials of the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC, who said in May that disparate-impact liability is explicitly outlawed under Title VII and has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The former officials cautioned employers that they should avoid following Trump's executive order so they do not violate federal laws. 'Disparate impact liability is a necessary element of advancing equal opportunity for all, consistent with America's national commitment to equal justice,' the officials wrote. In a press release, plaintiff-side firm Outten & Golden, which is partly representing the job applicant in the Sheetz case, said EEOC had spent nearly a decade investigating the claims at issue and had found a basis to allege evidence of systemic discrimination. 'Our client has a right to be judged on his qualifications, and not to be denied a livelihood by policies that exclude people with stale convictions that are unrelated to the job,' said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center and a co-representative for the plaintiff, said in the press release. 'When the government steps back, we step in. We will not allow political interference to wipe out hard-won legal protections.' A similar dynamic played out following EEOC's abandonment of several lawsuits it filed on behalf of transgender workers alleging discrimination following an executive order from Trump. Advocacy groups have since filed to intervene on behalf of plaintiffs in those cases. Recommended Reading Shell Oil did not discriminate in hiring decision, 5th Cir. says

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store