The National Women’s Law Center fights for gender justice—in the courts, in public policy, and in our society.
Shumway v. SpaceX, et al.
Shumway v. SpaceX, et al.
Why It Matters
Congress enacted the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) to ensure workers who experience sexual harassment and assault can seek justice without being forced into closed-door and secretive forced arbitration proceedings. Our amicus brief explains why the Court should not impose additional limits on the EFAA that Congress declined to enact. Reading such limits into the EFAA would contradict the statute’s plain text, legislative history, and case law, and it would undermine the access to justice that Congress enacted the statute to protect.
Summary
On June 29, 2026, NWLC, American Association for Justice, and the National Employment Lawyers Association filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Shumway v. SpaceX, et al. The brief argues that the Ninth Circuit should affirm the district court’s ruling that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) permits the plaintiff to bring her entire case in court because it includes sex-based harassment and retaliation claims.
Congress passed the EFAA in 2022 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 the EFAA’s plain text, legislative history, and case law all confirm that plaintiffs can invalidate arbitration agreements if they allege conduct that would constitute sexual harassment under applicable law, even if the conduct is not “sexual in nature” or motivated by desire. The brief also explains that the EFAA does not require plaintiffs to establish the merits of harassment allegations before invoking the statute’s protections. Finally, a plaintiff’s invalidation of an arbitration agreement under the EFAA applies to the entire case that contains a sexual harassment dispute, not just the sexual harassment dispute itself. Thus, the brief argues, the district court was correct to permit the plaintiffs’ entire case to proceed in court.
