EFAA Bars Arbitration of Negligence Claims Logically Connected to a Sexual Assault

Introduction

In C.N. v Sigma Delta Tau Socy., the Appellate Division addressed an issue of first impression for the Second Department: whether the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”), 9 USC §§ 401–402, can invalidate a predispute arbitration agreement in an action alleging negligence against a defendant that did not itself commit the alleged sexual assault.

The plaintiff, a SUNY Cortland student and sorority member, alleged that Sigma Delta Tau and its national organization required her to attend a fraternity mixer, despite allegedly dangerous circumstances associated with the fraternity. After becoming impaired from intoxicants supplied at the event, she allegedly was taken elsewhere and sexually assaulted by a fraternity member.

The plaintiff sued the sorority for negligently requiring attendance and failing to supervise and protect its members. Relying on an arbitration provision in the plaintiff’s membership contract, the defendants moved under CPLR 7503(a) to compel arbitration in Indiana. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed.

Rule Established

The EFAA may render a predispute arbitration agreement unenforceable in a negligence action against a non-assailant when the complaint sufficiently alleges a sexual assault dispute and the negligence claim has a logical or causal nexus to that assault.

Neither the legal label attached to the claim nor the defendant’s personal participation in the assault controls. The critical question is whether the case “relates to” a sexual assault dispute within the meaning of 9 USC § 402(a).

Summary of the Opinion

The court held that the plaintiff could elect to avoid arbitration under the EFAA because:

1. The complaint sufficiently alleged a “sexual assault dispute,” meaning a dispute involving a nonconsensual sexual act or contact.
2. The negligence action related to that dispute because the sorority’s alleged failure to supervise and protect the plaintiff was claimed to have exposed her to the circumstances leading to the assault.
3. The EFAA does not require the defendant seeking arbitration to have committed the sexual assault.
4. The statute does not require a formally pleaded cause of action for sexual assault or a claim brought under a statute specifically prohibiting sexual misconduct.

The court therefore reversed the order, with costs, and denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Because the EFAA disposed of the motion, the court did not decide whether arbitration in Indiana would impose an unreasonable hardship on the plaintiff.

Analysis

1. Statutory Framework

The Federal Arbitration Act generally makes arbitration provisions in contracts involving commerce enforceable. The parties did not dispute that the Act governed the membership agreement. The EFAA, however, creates an express exception: at the election of a person alleging conduct constituting a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute, a predispute arbitration agreement is unenforceable “with respect to a case” filed under federal, tribal, or state law that “relates to” such a dispute.

The court treated the EFAA inquiry as having two principal steps:

1. Does the complaint allege conduct constituting a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute?
2. If so, does the case relate to that dispute?

2. Plain Meaning of “Relates To”

Applying ordinary meaning, the court interpreted “relates to” as requiring a relationship, connection, or logical or causal nexus. That language is broader than a requirement that the plaintiff plead sexual assault as a separate cause of action against the defendant seeking arbitration.

The court likewise interpreted “involving,” as used in the definition of “sexual assault dispute,” expansively. A dispute may involve sexual assault even when the defendant did not commit the sexual act, provided the dispute includes or concerns the assault in a legally meaningful way.

3. Application to the Negligence Claim

The complaint alleged that the sorority obligated the plaintiff to attend the mixer, knew or should have known of the fraternity’s allegedly dangerous history, failed to supervise its members, and thereby exposed the plaintiff to circumstances resulting in the assault. These allegations created the required nexus.

The court did not determine whether the sorority actually owed or breached a duty, whether the assault was foreseeable, or whether the plaintiff could prove causation. Those are merits questions. For the arbitration motion, it was enough that the pleaded negligence theory was logically connected to the alleged nonconsensual sexual act.

4. Legislative History

The legislative history reinforced the textual analysis. Statements from Senators Joni Ernst and Lindsey Graham indicated that unrelated claims should not be removed from arbitration merely because a complaint also mentions sexual misconduct. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand emphasized, however, that claims that “relate to” sexual assault or harassment may escape forced arbitration.

The court derived a limiting principle from those statements: the EFAA does not automatically invalidate arbitration for every claim appearing alongside an allegation of sexual misconduct, but it does apply when a “key nexus” exists. The alleged failure to protect the plaintiff from the assault supplied that nexus here.

5. Precedents Cited

EFAA Authorities

• Olivieri v Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. described the EFAA as rendering arbitration agreements invalid and unenforceable, at the complainant’s election, in qualifying sexual assault and sexual harassment cases. It supplied the court’s basic description of the statute’s operation.
• Diaz-Roa v Hermes Law, P.C. explained the EFAA’s remedial purpose and its threshold framework. It emphasized Congress’s concern that forced arbitration can permit companies to control procedures, preserve secrecy, and prevent survivors from publicly sharing their experiences.
• P.C. v Driscoll involved claims against medical providers who did not commit the alleged assault. The court there held that malpractice, emotional-distress, negligent-hiring, and related claims could fall under the EFAA because the complaint expressly alleged sexual assault and the claims related to it. This was closely analogous to the claims against the sorority.
• Delo v Paul Taylor Dance Found., Inc. rejected the argument that EFAA coverage depends on labeling a cause of action “sexual harassment.” It supported the principle that the underlying allegations and their legal relationship to sexual misconduct—not claim titles—control.
• Bulic v Celebrity Cruises, Inc. held that negligence and unseaworthiness claims arising from an alleged assault aboard a cruise ship could invoke the EFAA. It directly supported the conclusion that the governing cause of action need not arise under a statute expressly prohibiting sexual assault.
• Polen v API Group Life Safety USA, LLC interpreted “involving” broadly and stated that the EFAA requires the dispute to involve sexual assault, not that the defendant personally caused or committed the sexual act. The Appellate Division relied on this distinction in rejecting the sorority’s argument.
• Childress v Moore was cited as additional federal authority supporting an expansive interpretation of “relates to” and the EFAA’s application to claims connected to sexual misconduct.
• Hankins v Burlington Stores, Inc. was cited as part of the broader federal consensus that the EFAA may reach claims not formally denominated as sexual-assault claims when the required relationship exists.
• Doe #1 v Pispidikis and Casey v Superior Ct. were cited in a footnote concerning the interaction between the Federal Arbitration Act and the EFAA. Because the parties conceded that the Federal Arbitration Act governed, the court did not independently analyze that issue.

Statutory-Interpretation Authorities

• Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer and Riley v County of Broome established that the principal objective of statutory interpretation is to identify and effectuate legislative intent.
• Matter of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v County of Putnam and Yatauro v Mangano supported beginning with the statute’s language.
• Matter of Mestecky v City of New York reinforced that unambiguous statutory language ordinarily must be given its plain meaning.
• Rosner v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. authorized using ordinary and dictionary meanings when a statute does not specially define a term.
• District of Columbia v Greater Washington Bd. of Trade and Morales v Trans World Airlines, Inc. characterized “relate to” as deliberately broad language, supporting the Appellate Division’s expansive reading.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Predispute arbitration agreement

An agreement made before a dispute arises requiring future disputes to be resolved privately by an arbitrator rather than in court.

“Sounds in negligence”

The claim is legally based on an alleged failure to use reasonable care, rather than on an allegation that the defendant personally committed an intentional assault.

Logical nexus

A meaningful connection between the defendant’s alleged conduct and the sexual assault. The connection need not mean that the defendant was the assailant.

CPLR 7503(a)

The New York procedural provision allowing a party to seek an order compelling arbitration when another party refuses to arbitrate.

Issue of first impression

A legal question that the particular court has not previously decided in a binding opinion.

Potential Impact

The decision makes clear that organizations cannot obtain arbitration merely by characterizing a survivor’s claim as ordinary negligence or by emphasizing that a third party committed the assault. The ruling may affect negligence, negligent-supervision, hiring, retention, premises-liability, medical-malpractice, and similar actions against employers, schools, membership organizations, healthcare entities, hospitality businesses, and other institutional defendants.

The decision nevertheless preserves a boundary. A passing or unrelated allegation of sexual misconduct will not necessarily displace arbitration. Courts must determine whether the pleaded claim has the required logical connection to the sexual assault or harassment dispute. The opinion also does not decide the ultimate merits of the negligence claim or invalidate arbitration agreements for disputes lacking that nexus.

Conclusion

C.N. v Sigma Delta Tau Socy. establishes that the EFAA turns on the substance and relationship of the allegations, not formal claim labels or the identity of the assailant. Where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant’s negligent conduct placed her in circumstances leading to a sexual assault, the resulting negligence action may “relate to” a sexual assault dispute and therefore proceed in court despite a predispute arbitration clause.

By reversing the order compelling arbitration, the Second Department adopted a broad but nexus-based interpretation consistent with the EFAA’s text, legislative purpose, and developing federal precedent.