PORTLAND (LN) — An Oregon appellate panel on Tuesday affirmed a trial court's refusal to compel arbitration of a retaliation lawsuit brought by a former moving-company employee who was fired after reporting witnessed sexual harassment during an internal investigation, ruling for the first time that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act covers not just harassment victims but anyone who reports workplace sexual harassment.
Isaiah Cook worked for Stanley G. Alexander, Inc. — operating as Alexander's Mobility Services — from March 2023 until his termination in November 2023. He sued the company and several supervisors in 2024, alleging in Counts 13 and 14 of his complaint that they retaliated against him after he was interviewed by human resources and told investigators he had witnessed a male employee inappropriately hitting on and pursuing a female coworker.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration under a predispute agreement Cook signed before starting work, arguing the EFAA shields only victims of sexual assault or harassment — not bystanders who surface during an employer's investigation. The Multnomah County Circuit Court denied the motion, and defendants appealed.
Presiding Judge Shorr, writing for the panel, rejected that reading of the statute. The EFAA defines a sexual harassment dispute as "a dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment," and Shorr held that language carries no victim limitation.
"We conclude that the EFAA applies to retaliation claims brought, not only by victims, but also by reporters of workplace sexual harassment," Shorr wrote.
Defendants tried to carve out a narrower category, arguing that cases extending the EFAA to reporters — including the Second Circuit's 2024 decision in Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and a 2023 Oregon federal district court ruling in Hix v. Dave & Buster's — involved employees who personally filed complaints, not witnesses deposed mid-investigation. The panel was unmoved.
"We decline to draw that distinction because we see no meaningful difference, for purposes of application of the clear terms of the statute, between initial and subsequent reporters of sexual harassment," Shorr wrote.
The court also pushed back on a South Carolina federal district court decision, Newman v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, which had concluded that a plaintiff whose claims are based on a witness statement he provided — rather than a grievance he personally filed or harassment he personally experienced — is not a sexual harassment claimant for EFAA purposes. Shorr noted that the alleged victim in Newman had not asserted a sexual harassment claim at all, but rather alleged that another employee made a demeaning comment about her weight — a materially different posture from Cook's case.
The panel did not reach whether the parties formed a valid arbitration contract in the first place, leaving that question open should the litigation continue.
No Oregon appellate court — and no U.S. Supreme Court decision — had previously examined the scope of the EFAA before Tuesday's ruling.