Judge Beth Robinson, nominated by President Biden to the Second Circuit, wrote a unanimous decision that upheld a district court finding that a woman could not be forced to take her sexual harassment and hostile work environment case to arbitration after Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), even though the employer’s misconduct began before the law took effect. The August 2024 decision was in Olivieri v Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.
What is the background of this case?
In 2018, Patricia Olivieri started working as a client services associate at Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., a financial services firm. After she began reporting to Senior Vice President Neil Isler, her complaint states, she experienced a pattern of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. For example, Isler verbally sexually harassed her, “leaned into her so that his crotch was close to touching her,” and “placed his palm on her buttocks” in one incident. The harassment stopped when Stifel closed its physical offices during COVID-19, but Isler “picked up where he left off” when people returned to the office.
Even as she continued to try to advance in the company, Olivieri tried to resolve the harm she was suffering informally within the company, but without much success. An internal HR investigation did not produce good results, and in fact led to a transfer to a position of less responsibility and pay. In early 2021, she filed a federal lawsuit against Isler and Stifel, contending that she had suffered sexual harassment, retaliation, and a continuing hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In August 2021, Stifel moved to compel arbitration of Olivier’s complaint pursuant to a standard provision in the company’s employment contract. While the motion was pending, Congress passed the EFAA to prevent employers from forcing victims of sex harassment and related abuse to remove their claims from court and resolve them through employer-friendly arbitration. The law took effect on March 3, 2022.
Although the district court initially sent the case to arbitration, it reconsidered its decision and denied arbitration in 2023. The court explained that Olivieri’s hostile work environment claims “constituted ongoing claims subject to the continuing violation doctrine”, and that some of Stifel’s misconduct in continuing the hostile work environment took place after the effective date of EFAA, so that the statute protected Olivieri from mandatory arbitration of those claims. Stifel appealed to the Second Circuit.
How did Judge Robinson and the Second Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Robinson wrote a unanimous opinion that affirmed the district court’s judgment so that Olivieri’s claims can proceed against Stifel in court. Although the harassment and hostile work environment she suffered began prior to the law’s enactment, Robinson explained that under the statutory language and past precedent, the continuing hostile work environment “accrued” after the EFAA effective date because it continued to occur then. The same was true about her related retaliation claims. Judge Robinson also carefully considered and rejected other defenses raised by Stifel.
Judge Robinson’s opinion is obviously important to Patricia Olivieri, who can now proceed to try to get justice in court for the civil rights violations from which she has suffered at Stifel. The ruling also sets an important precedent to allow other victims of continuing sexual harassment and hostile work environment to avoid employer efforts to arbitrate their claims under EFAA, particularly in the Second Circuit, which includes New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.