Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.
112f4th74
2d Cir.2024Background
- Patricia Olivieri, an employee at Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, alleged sexual assault and persistent sexual harassment by her supervisor, Neil Isler, followed by retaliation and a hostile work environment after reporting the conduct.
- Olivieri filed suit under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and later amended her complaint to add Title VII claims and additional individual defendants.
- Stifel moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in Olivieri’s employment agreement; the district court initially granted this motion before the recent enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA).
- The EFAA, enacted in March 2022, allows complainants in sexual harassment and assault disputes to elect to void predispute arbitration agreements for claims that "accrue" on or after its effective date.
- The district court, on reconsideration, determined that Olivieri’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims accrued after the EFAA effective date because of ongoing retaliatory conduct and denied the motion to compel arbitration.
- Defendants appealed, asserting the EFAA should not apply to Olivieri's claims because her claims "accrued" before the EFAA’s effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the EFAA apply to ongoing hostile work environment claims? | Claims subject to continuing violation doctrine accrue with each act; post-EFAA retaliation brings claims within EFAA’s scope. | Claims "accrued" when they first became actionable (pre-EFAA); EFAA is not retroactive. | EFAA applies; hostile work environment claims accrue with each retaliatory act – including those post-EFAA. |
| When does a claim "accrue" under the EFAA? | Accrual aligned with statute of limitations—each new act can reaccrue the claim. | Accrued when actionable/when first filed, not after. | Accrual means when a claim becomes actionable, per statutes of limitations and the continuing violation doctrine. |
| Does application of the EFAA here result in impermissible retroactivity? | No retroactivity since EFAA applies to post-enactment conduct; statute expressly applies to claims accruing after effective date. | Application would be retroactive and improper. | No retroactive application; claim accrues/reaccrues with new conduct post-EFAA. |
| Are Olivieri’s retaliation claims "sexual harassment disputes" under EFAA? | Retaliation for reporting harassment is “related to” sexual harassment and falls within EFAA’s definition. | Retaliation is not itself a sexual harassment dispute. | Retaliation tied to harassment is covered by EFAA as it relates to sexual harassment under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile work environment recognized as a form of sexual harassment under Title VII)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile work environment claims accrue with each act in a continuing violation)
- Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (limitations period for hostile-work-environment claim runs from last act composing the claim)
- Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 571 U.S. 99 (statute of limitations begins to run when cause of action accrues)
- Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335 (courts construe statutes in accordance with ordinary and technical meanings)