How the Decloedt Ruling Lets Harassed LGBTQ+ Workers Avoid Arbitration
Can I Sue My Employer for Harassment After the Decloedt Decision?
Key Takeaways: In Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc., California’s Second District Court of Appeal held that sexual orientation harassment qualifies as "sexual harassment" under the state’s FEHA. This means such claims fall within the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), allowing workers to bring qualifying disputes in court despite arbitration agreements. Harassed LGBTQ+ employees in Redondo Beach can often avoid forced arbitration and elect a public forum with broader discovery and appellate review. Under recent California decisions, the exemption can extend to all claims in a lawsuit when at least one qualifies, though this remains contested and evolving. The EFAA applies to disputes arising or accruing on or after March 3, 2022. FEHA’s "severe or pervasive" standard is generally friendlier to employees than federal law, though outcomes depend on the facts, timing, and how claims are pleaded.
A recent published decision from California’s Second District Court of Appeal is reshaping how LGBTQ+ harassment claims move through the legal system. In Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc., the court confronted whether an arbitration agreement signed on the first day of work can steer a harassment case into a private forum. For workers in Redondo Beach and across California, the answer now leans toward the courthouse when harassment is tied to sexual orientation.
The case arose from disturbing allegations.
Trevor Joseph Decloedt alleged that over several months, a coworker and supervisor repeatedly harassed him because of his sexual orientation, including telling him homosexuality was a "sin," threatening to kill him, and pulling his hair with such force that he fled to the restroom.
Because he had signed an arbitration agreement at the outset of employment, his employer tried to force the dispute into arbitration. That effort failed, and the appellate court explained why.
What the EFAA and FEHA Mean for California Workers
Two bodies of law intersect in the Decloedt ruling. The first is the federal EFAA, enacted in the wake of the #MeToo movement.
The EFAA permits a person to bring a claim for sexual harassment or sexual assault in court, even if they previously agreed to arbitrate such disputes.
The election belongs to the worker, not the employer.
The second is California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which supplies substantive harassment protections.
FEHA prohibits harassment on myriad bases, including "sex" and "sexual orientation," stating that "harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions."
The employer in Decloedt argued that because FEHA lists "sexual orientation" and "sex" separately, orientation-based harassment falls outside the EFAA’s reach.
The Court of Appeal rejected this, explaining that "includes" in the statutory definition is a term of enlargement, not limitation.
You can read the full statutory text of FEHA’s harassment provisions in the California Government Code on employment discrimination.
FEHA also sets a threshold generally friendlier to employees than federal law.
The EFAA applies to disputes relating to conduct alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable law, and the court found Decloedt sufficiently alleged severe or pervasive harassment because of his homosexuality.
Under FEHA, harassing conduct need not be both severe and pervasive; either can suffice, and a single incident may qualify if severe enough. This lower bar can matter greatly in orientation-based cases. Many readers find it helpful to review what counts as sexual harassment under FEHA before speaking with counsel.
A Redondo Beach Worker Pushes Back Against Forced Arbitration
Imagine a medical technician in Redondo Beach who is gay and endures months of slurs and threats from a supervisor. She reports the conduct to human resources, but nothing changes. When she decides to pursue a claim, her employer waves the arbitration agreement she signed on her first day and insists the dispute belongs in a private proceeding. Before Decloedt, that argument might have ended her chance at a public trial.
After Decloedt, her path looks different. Because her harassment is rooted in sexual orientation, she may argue that the EFAA exemption applies and her arbitration agreement is unenforceable.
Decloedt expands the application of the EFAA in California by concluding that sexual orientation harassment claims under FEHA are "sexual harassment disputes" under the EFAA.
That shift can be decisive for someone who wants a public forum, broader discovery, and appellate review.
Why Court Access Can Matter More Than It Seems
Choosing court over arbitration is not merely procedural; it shapes the entire case trajectory.
Forced arbitration can disadvantage employees by limiting their ability to present evidence, appeal decisions, or hold employers publicly accountable.
Public litigation also carries transparency that private proceedings lack. For many victims, that accountability is part of why they come forward.
The Reach of the Exemption Across Claims
One striking feature of recent California decisions is how far the EFAA exemption can extend within a lawsuit.
California courts have found that where a plaintiff’s lawsuit contains at least one claim within the EFAA’s scope, the arbitration agreement can be unenforceable as to all claims asserted.
This means related claims can sometimes travel to court alongside the harassment claim. That said, this area remains fact-sensitive and unsettled, some courts require other claims to relate to the harassment dispute, and the question is being litigated nationwide, including in circuit courts of appeals; however, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the leading case on this issue (Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc.) on October 6, 2025, leaving the question unresolved at the highest level.
Can I Sue My Employer for Harassment, and What Should I Prove?
If you are asking whether you can sue, the answer depends on what happened, when it happened, and whether you can document it. Under California law, harassment because of a protected characteristic can support a claim, and you do not have to lose a job or promotion to prevail. FEHA focuses on the conduct’s impact on the employee rather than the harasser’s intent. Individuals who personally engage in prohibited harassment can also face personal liability.
Building a strong record early is one of the most practical steps a worker can take. Consider preserving:
- Written records of each incident, including dates, times, locations, and witnesses
- Copies of reports made to supervisors or HR, along with responses
- Text messages, emails, or communications reflecting the conduct
- Performance reviews or personnel documents showing potential retaliation
- Contact information for coworkers who observed the harassment
Employers sometimes point to anti-harassment training as a shield, but training alone does not defeat a claim. California law provides that an employer’s compliance with mandatory training requirements does not insulate it from liability for harassment. Even where a company trained its staff, a Redondo Beach worker may still pursue a claim. To understand your options, speak with a knowledgeable LGBTQ workplace harassment attorney about your evidence’s strength.
How Does This Impact Me?
What Does the Decloedt Ruling Mean for My Case?
It may mean your arbitration agreement is not the obstacle you feared. If your harassment relates to sexual orientation, and increasingly gender identity or expression, you may elect court instead of arbitration.
In light of Decloedt, claims for gender identity and gender expression harassment will likely be treated by California courts as sexual harassment claims under FEHA, proving exempt from arbitration.
Whether the exemption applies to your facts is best evaluated with counsel.
Does This Change My Deadline to File?
No court decision erases harassment claim deadlines. For a federal charge with the EEOC, you generally must file within 180 calendar days of the discriminatory act, extended to 300 days when a state or local agency enforces a law prohibiting the same conduct, as California does. You can review these federal windows on the EEOC’s page explaining time limits for filing a charge. California’s deadlines differ and are generally longer; workers ordinarily have three years to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, so acting promptly remains wise.
Can I Still Go to Court If I Already Signed an Arbitration Agreement?
Signing an arbitration agreement does not automatically end your right to litigate a qualifying harassment claim.
The EFAA can apply even when the arbitration agreement was signed before March 3, 2022, so long as the dispute or claim arises or accrues on or after that date; courts have declined to apply it to disputes fully formed before then.
The key issue is often when the claim arose, not when you signed.
What Should I Do Next?
Document everything, avoid delay, and get an individualized assessment. Because harassment cases turn heavily on specific facts, general information cannot substitute for tailored advice. Preserving evidence and understanding your filing options are among the most useful first steps.
Where This Leaves Redondo Beach Employees
The Decloedt decision strengthens the position of LGBTQ+ workers who want their day in court rather than closed-door arbitration. By recognizing that sexual orientation harassment is sexual harassment under FEHA, the Court of Appeal aligned California’s protective employment framework with the federal EFAA’s arbitration exemption. The Supreme Court’s Bostock decision (2020) remains binding law and protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status, though the EEOC no longer officially confirms this extends to harassment through its formal guidance, a point worth exploring through the agency’s overview of workplace harassment law. Still, every case is different, and results depend on the facts, timing, and how claims are presented.
If you believe you have experienced workplace harassment, you do not have to sort through these questions alone. The team at Kent | Pincin works with employees navigating harassment and arbitration issues in Redondo Beach and throughout California. To discuss how this ruling may affect your situation, call [(310) 424-4991]((310) 424-4991) or reach out to our team today. This article is general information and is not legal advice for your specific circumstances.