Sexual Harassment

Universities and employers have a duty to respond to allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination. Many organizations conduct investigations before responding, and plaintiffs have filed gender discrimination lawsuits based on the investigations themselves. For one example, read coverage of trial about a Columbia University investigation here. Whether an investigation is so faulty or biased that it creates a legal claim will depend on all the circumstances. Each case is different, and the line of fault is shifting in light of the #MeToo movement and the increased recognition of the need to end sexual harassment and assault. A recent case concerning New York University highlights that, even where an investigation identifies sexual harassment and results in consequences for the harasser, it may be legally insufficient. A former graduate student at NYU, Nimrod Reitman, alleged that his academic advisor, prominent professor Avita Ronell, sexually assaulted, sexually harassed, and stalked him and that she retaliated against him when he tried to stop her abuse. The case has started a long-overdue conversation in the academic community about sexual harassment and assault and the power structures within universities that enable predators. A group of powerful academics issued a letter supporting Professor Ronell and attacking Mr. Reitman, even though the scholars admitted […]

The #MeToo movement has shined an unflattering light on employer-mandated arbitration agreements, which commonly prevent victims of sexual harassment from speaking publicly about their experiences. Mandatory and confidential arbitration has the effect of forcing women into silence, while allowing perpetrators to continue to harass and assault other employees.  With the rise of the #MeToo movement, states have begun to enact laws that prohibit mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment cases. In April, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law an Executive Budget with several provisions targeting workplace sexual harassment, including a new ban on mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims. This prohibition applies to contracts entered into on or after July 11, 2018 and also declares “null and void” “any cause or provision in any contract which requires . . . the parties submit to mandatory arbitration to resolve any allegation or claim of . . . sexual harassment.” N.Y.C.P.L.R. 7515(a)(2), 7515(a)(4)(b)(i)-(iii) (emphasis added). The new law does not apply to collective bargaining agreements or affect the arbitrability of claims unrelated to sexual harassment, such as pay discrimination lawsuits. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. And it is part of a nationwide trend. This past March, Washington enacted a law […]