Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 746 F.Supp.3d 135

Background

Plaintiff Andowah Newton, an attorney, worked as litigation counsel for LVMH starting in 2015 and alleges a series of sexually harassing acts by an LVMH executive, as well as retaliatory actions by other company officials after she reported the conduct.
Newton began reporting harassment in 2015, and subsequent investigations (both internal and external) found no violation of company policy or law.
Plaintiff alleges that between 2018 and her termination in 2022, she was subjected to increasing and various forms of workplace retaliation, including negative reviews, exclusion from opportunities, and ultimately, termination.
Plaintiff filed related claims in state court, which were compelled to arbitration, and then subsequently filed new federal claims of retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL based on discrete acts occurring after the March 3, 2022 enactment of the EFAA.
The parties disputed whether Newton’s retaliation claims could proceed in court or must be arbitrated given the EFAA’s bar on enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements in cases relating to sexual harassment or assault.
Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add older discrimination claims, enjoin pending arbitration, and unseal documents; LVMH moved to compel arbitration or dismiss the federal case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the EFAA bar arbitration of post-March 3, 2022 retaliation claims relating to sexual harassment?	Yes; claims relate to retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and thus fall under the EFAA’s protection.	No (or not entirely); EFAA should not apply retroactively or to discrete claims accruing before March 3, 2022.	EFAA bars arbitration only for discrete retaliation claims accruing after March 3, 2022; the agreement is unenforceable as to those claims.
Did plaintiff plausibly allege timely retaliation claims under Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL?	Yes; recent acts of denial of promotion/accommodation and termination were retaliatory for engaging in protected activities.	No; acts (especially post-EFAA) are not plausibly connected to protected activities or known to decisionmakers.	No; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that protected activities caused the timely adverse actions.
May plaintiff amend complaint to add new claims/defendants, including pre-EFAA discrimination claims?	Yes; EFAA applies to the whole 'case' and amendment would bring pre-EFAA claims into court.	No; amendment is futile, the older claims are subject to arbitration, and forum shopping is improper.	Denied; pre-EFAA claims must be arbitrated, amendment is futile, sought in bad faith.
Should the court enjoin ongoing arbitration?	Yes; pending federal proceedings and EFAA supposedly preclude further arbitration.	No; arbitration agreement is valid as to pre-EFAA claims still pending.	Denied; no basis to enjoin, agreement applies to pre-EFAA claims.

Key Cases Cited

Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (district courts must determine arbitrability based on state contract law unless the agreement clearly delegates the question)
Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2019) (strong federal policy favoring arbitration; all doubts resolved in favor of arbitrability)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard under Federal Rules for plausibility)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts vs. continuing violations for accrual and timeliness in Title VII claims)
Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013) (claim accrual standard: claim accrues when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (prima facie pleading requirements for Title VII retaliation claims)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulates standard for sealing/unsealing judicial documents)