Rix v. Polsinelli Pc
Civil Action No. 2023-3062
D.D.C.Sep 18, 2025Background
- Rix, a lawyer recruited to Polsinelli’s D.C. office as an equity shareholder, alleges repeated sexual advances and unwanted physical contact by partners Dov Scherzer and Gabriel Dabiri while she worked for the firm.
- She claims the partners conditioned business opportunities on submission to their advances, received a negative performance review thereafter, was de-equitized and had compensation withheld, and was fired shortly after reporting the misconduct.
- Rix sued in D.C. Superior Court asserting DCHRA sexual harassment and retaliation, Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation, aiding and abetting (DCHRA), intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; she later dismissed her breach-of-contract claim.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss several claims and to compel arbitration for certain claims based on Rix’s employment agreement.
- The court accepted the complaint’s allegations as true for pleading-stage review, denied defendants’ choice-of-law argument that Missouri law governs Rix’s state claims, found Rix plausibly pleaded DCHRA and D.C. tort claims, and held the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) bars enforcement of the arbitration clause for this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for state claims | Rix argues D.C. law governs her DCHRA and common-law claims because her employment-related conduct and injury occurred in D.C. | Defendants argue the employment agreement’s Missouri choice-of-law provision requires Missouri law. | Court: Missouri clause governs contract interpretation only; D.C. has the greatest interest and most significant relationship, so D.C. law applies. |
| Sufficiency of DCHRA sexual harassment claim against Scherzer | Rix contends repeated advances, nonconsensual kiss, and abuse of partner power plausibly show harassment altering employment terms and hostile environment. | Scherzer contends allegations are insufficient to state a DCHRA claim against him. | Court: Allegations (frequency, duration, location, power disparity, effects) plausibly state a DCHRA sexual harassment claim. |
| Aiding and abetting liability for partners | Rix contends partners who personally engaged in discriminatory conduct can be liable as aiding/abetting the firm’s violations. | Defendants argue partners cannot be liable for aiding/abetting when alleged to have committed the underlying conduct. | Court: Under DCHRA and D.C. precedent, partners who carried out discriminatory acts may be liable for aiding and abetting the firm. |
| Enforceability of arbitration clause under EFAA | Rix argues EFAA voids predispute arbitration for any case that "relates to" a sexual harassment dispute, covering her Title VII, DCHRA, retaliation, and tort claims. | Defendants concede arbitration is unenforceable for the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim but argue other claims (retaliation, DCHRA, torts) must be arbitrated. | Court: EFAA voids predispute arbitration for this case because her suit constitutes a sexual harassment dispute and the remaining claims "relate to" that dispute; arbitration compelled denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (federal courts apply D.C. choice-of-law rules for state-law claims)
- Ekstrom v. Value Health, Inc., 68 F.3d 1391 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (enforce contractual choice-of-law provisions with reasonable relationship)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (choice-of-law analysis: governmental interests and most significant relationship)
- Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 715 A.2d 873 (D.C. 1998) (partners who carried out discriminatory acts can be liable for aiding and abetting employer)
- Purcell v. Thomas, 928 A.2d 699 (D.C. 2007) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Harris v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 776 F.3d 907 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress)