Background
A SUNY Cortland student identified as C.N. sued Sigma Delta Tau and its national organization after she allegedly was sexually assaulted at a fraternity event. Her complaint alleged that the sorority expected and obligated members to attend the mixer even though the fraternity had been removed from campus and disaffiliated from its national organization because of prior dangerous conduct. She alleged that intoxicants left her impaired and that a fraternity member took her to a neighboring property and assaulted her.
C.N. did not allege that the sorority itself committed the assault. She pleaded negligence, contending that the organization placed her in a dangerous setting and failed to supervise or protect its members. The sorority relied on an arbitration provision in her membership agreement and moved under CPLR 7503(a) to compel arbitration and stay the civil action. Supreme Court granted the motion, requiring the Second Department to decide whether the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, or EFAA, reached a negligence claim against a third party.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Carl J. Landicino, writing on an issue of first impression for the Second Department, reversed. The EFAA permits a person alleging conduct constituting a sexual-assault or sexual-harassment dispute to elect that a predispute arbitration agreement will not apply to a case filed under federal, tribal, or state law that relates to the dispute. Whether the statute applies is for a court, not an arbitrator, to decide under federal law.
The panel held that the complaint alleged a sexual-assault dispute because it involved a nonconsensual sexual act. The statutory inquiry does not turn on whether the defendant personally committed or caused the act. It was enough that the dispute involved the alleged assault and that C.N.’s negligence action related to it. Her theory—that the sorority required attendance, failed to supervise, and thereby placed her in circumstances leading to the assault—created the required logical nexus.
The court rejected the sorority’s effort to characterize the case as merely a negligence dispute outside the EFAA. Congress used broad relational language, and the claim specifically alleged that negligent omissions led to the sexual assault. Because the federal statute rendered the predispute arbitration clause unenforceable for this case, the panel denied the motion to compel. It did not need to decide whether arbitration in Indiana would impose an unreasonable hardship.
Key Takeaways
- The EFAA can invalidate predispute arbitration for negligence claims against third parties, not only claims against the alleged assailant.
- New York courts decide EFAA applicability before sending a dispute to arbitration.
- A complaint must allege a logical nexus between the civil claim and a nonconsensual sexual act; the statutory label attached to the cause of action is not controlling.
Why It Matters
The ruling materially broadens the practical reach of the EFAA in New York. Schools, membership organizations, employers, hospitality businesses, and other entities cannot assume an arbitration clause remains enforceable simply because the pleaded theory is negligent supervision rather than direct sexual misconduct. Counsel evaluating a motion to compel should focus on the factual dispute alleged and the relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the assault.
For plaintiffs, the decision underscores the importance of pleading that relationship with concrete facts. For organizations, it makes pre-incident waivers and forum provisions less reliable where an action is tied to sexual assault. The ruling does not decide the sorority’s negligence or impose liability; it decides that C.N. may litigate that claim in court. That forum determination can significantly affect discovery, publicity, appellate review, and settlement leverage.
Transactional counsel should also review existing membership and participation agreements with the EFAA in mind. Arbitration provisions may remain useful for unrelated disputes, but broad drafting cannot override the federal election for a covered case. Litigators should separate the threshold statutory question from the ultimate merits and preserve a factual record showing when the alleged conduct and agreement arose, because statutory timing can affect coverage.