Arbitration
Sexual Orientation Harassment Is Sexual Harassment, Blocking Arbitration
Updated
In Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc., the Second District Court of Appeal held that harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)—which brings a case within the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) and exempts it from the Federal Arbitration Act. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The opinion was certified for publication on July 7, 2026.
Background
Trevor Joseph Decloedt sued Radnet Management, Inc., and related entities and individuals in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging eleven state-law causes of action, including sexual harassment under FEHA. He claimed a coworker repeatedly disparaged his sexual orientation, expressed hostility, and made physical contact with him because he is gay.
The employer moved to compel arbitration under an agreement Decloedt had signed at the outset of his employment. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Decloedt had alleged a FEHA sexual harassment claim that triggered the EFAA’s exemption to the Federal Arbitration Act. The employer appealed.
What the Court Held on Sexual Orientation Harassment
FEHA bars an employer from harassing an employee “because of” sex. Reviewing the question de novo, the court reasoned that the same “because of . . . sex” language appears in Title VII, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County read to cover discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status.
Applying that logic, the court concluded that harassing an employee because of his homosexuality is harassment because of sex. It rejected the argument that FEHA’s separate listing of “sexual orientation” carved that conduct out of sexual harassment, noting that the statute’s use of “includes” is a word of enlargement, not limitation.
Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sexual harassment under FEHA. A plaintiff who adequately alleges such harassment states a sexual harassment dispute that falls within the EFAA’s exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act.
What the Court Held on the Sufficiency of the Pleading
The employer argued that, even if sexual orientation harassment counts, Decloedt had not alleged conduct severe or pervasive enough to state a FEHA claim. Assuming for argument that a federal Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard applied, the court held the complaint sufficient.
Construing the allegations in Decloedt’s favor, the court found he had described repeated anti-gay remarks, threats, and unwanted physical contact over several months, along with conduct that caused him to flee and to contemplate suicide. From that, a court could reasonably infer harassment because of his sexual orientation that was severe or pervasive. The court affirmed the order denying arbitration without reaching Decloedt’s unconscionability argument.
What This Means for You
This decision establishes that harassment based on sexual orientation is sexual harassment under FEHA. Because such a claim is a sexual harassment dispute within the EFAA, it exempts the case from a predispute arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The ruling touches employment disputes in which a plaintiff alleges sexual orientation harassment and the employer seeks to compel arbitration.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.