Janice L. Ruiz v. Butts Foods, L.P.
W2023-01053-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Janice Ruiz began working for Butts Foods, LP, and Quirch Foods, LLC in January 2022 and soon after alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by a manager.
- Ruiz reported this conduct to management in April and August 2022; retaliatory actions allegedly followed, and the harassment persisted.
- Ruiz filed suit in September 2022, asserting eight claims, including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and related torts under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA).
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an employment arbitration agreement, arguing the Federal Arbitration Act applied.
- Ruiz invoked the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), arguing that it invalidated any agreement to arbitrate such disputes arising or accruing after March 3, 2022.
- The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the EFAA applied due to ongoing and post-March 3, 2022 conduct; defendants appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the EFAA apply if sexual harassment began before but continued after March 3, 2022? | Harassment and retaliation continued after March 3, 2022, so claims accrued after the effective date under the continuing violation doctrine. | EFAA should not apply because some conduct occurred before March 3, so the claim accrued prior to the Act's effective date. | EFAA applies as the claim accrued after March 3, 2022, due to continuing violation; conduct after this date is sufficient. |
| Does the EFAA bar arbitration of the entire case or only sexual harassment claims? | The Act’s text bars arbitration for the whole “case” relating to sexual harassment, not just individual claims. | Only non-sexual harassment claims should be arbitrated; the Act covers only sexual harassment claims, not unrelated claims. | The entire case is barred from arbitration if it relates to the sexual harassment dispute; the Act covers all claims in the lawsuit. |
| When does a hostile work environment/sexual harassment claim accrue for the EFAA? | Accrual occurs at the last act of harassment as part of a continuing violation, not at the first instance. | Claims accrue when harassment first occurs, so claims starting before March 3, 2022 are not covered. | The court applies the continuing violation doctrine: accrual is when the harassment ends, so later acts after March 3, 2022 mean claims accrue post-enactment. |
| Should related retaliation or tort claims be arbitrated separately? | Retaliation and related tort claims are “related to” the sexual harassment dispute, so must stay in court under EFAA. | Only claims specifically alleging sexual harassment/assault are exempt; others are severable for arbitration. | Claims related to the sexual harassment dispute—including retaliation and other related torts—remain in court with the harassment claims under the EFAA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 112 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2024) (EFAA applies to hostile work environment claims that continue past effective date; continuing violation doctrine controls accrual)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile work environment claims accrue on the date of the last act; recognized continuing violation doctrine)
- Booker v. The Boeing Co., 188 S.W.3d 639 (Tenn. 2006) (Tennessee Supreme Court recognizes continuing violation doctrine applies to hostile work environment and accrual)
- Spicer v. Beaman Bottling Co., 937 S.W.2d 884 (Tenn. 1996) (sets out elements of a hostile work environment claim and continuing violation doctrine under Tennessee law)
- Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc., 657 F.Supp.3d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (interprets EFAA to bar arbitration of all claims in a case relating to a sexual harassment dispute)