The National Women’s Law Center fights for gender justice—in the courts, in public policy, and in our society.
Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessey Louis Vuitton Inc.
On October 9, 2025, NWLC and the American Association for Justice, joined by Public Justice, Equal Rights Advocates, and the National Employment Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessey Louis Vuitton Inc. The brief argues that the Second Circuit should reverse the district court’s ruling that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) does not apply to some of Plaintiff Andowah Newton’s claims that her employer retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment. It also argues that the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Newton’s case should be reversed because she plausibly alleged that her employer engaged in a pattern of retaliation that continued after the EFAA’s enactment.
When Ms. Newton reported that a colleague sexually harassed and assaulted her, she alleged that her employer began a pattern of retaliation that culminated in her termination. After forcing her case into arbitration, her employer initiated its own claim against her, demanding she pay its legal fees. In 2021, Ms. Newton testified to Congress about her experience being forced into arbitration by her employer after she attempted to assert her right to be free from gender discrimination in court. As the brief notes, Congress passed the EFAA to ensure that survivors of sexual assault and sex-based harassment could seek justice in court instead of being forced into arbitration proceedings. The brief argues that, because she alleged a retaliatory hostile work environment that continued after the EFAA’s enactment, the EFAA applies to Ms. Newton’s entire retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim and gives her the right to bring that claim in court if she chooses.
Update
On September 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part. The court held that Ms. Newton’s allegation that she was terminated after refusing to meet with her supervisor to discuss settling her sex discrimination claims was sufficient to state a plausible claim of retaliation under federal and state law, reversing the district court’s ruling. But the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision not to allow Ms. Newton to amend her complaint to include additional hostile work environment and retaliation claims, finding that these claims accrued prior to the EFAA’s effective date and were not part of a pattern of retaliation that continued after the EFAA’s enactment. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
NWLC and our fellow amici are disappointed in many aspects of the court’s opinion, but we are pleased that Ms. Newton will still have a chance to vindicate her right to be free from sex discrimination in court.
