Paralegal's Bias Suit Against Law Firm Allowed in Court, Not Arbitration

Sixth Circuit rules sexual harassment claim triggers EFAA exception to force entire case into arbitration

Published on Feb. 25, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a paralegal at the law firm Adams & Reese LLP can pursue her bias lawsuit against the firm in court, rather than being forced into arbitration. The court found that the paralegal, Randi Bruce, plausibly alleged sexual harassment by her supervising attorney, triggering her rights under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) to have the entire case heard in court rather than in private arbitration.

Why it matters

This ruling is significant as it establishes that the EFAA's exception to mandatory arbitration applies to an employee's entire lawsuit, not just the specific sexual harassment claims. This could have broad implications for how sexual harassment and other discrimination cases are handled, potentially making it easier for employees to have their full claims heard in open court rather than being forced into private arbitration.

The details

The Sixth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that Bruce's lawsuit, which included claims of gender discrimination and retaliation in addition to sexual harassment, must be heard in court rather than arbitration. The majority found that Bruce plausibly alleged sexual harassment, which triggered the EFAA's exception to mandatory arbitration, and that the exception covers the entire scope of her lawsuit, not just the sexual harassment claims.

  • The Sixth Circuit issued its ruling on February 25, 2026.

The players

Randi Bruce

A paralegal at the law firm Adams & Reese LLP who filed a lawsuit against the firm alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment.

Adams & Reese LLP

A law firm that was sued by one of its paralegals, Randi Bruce, for gender discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

The case will now proceed in federal court, rather than being forced into private arbitration.

The takeaway

This ruling affirms that the EFAA's exception to mandatory arbitration is intended to give employees the right to have their full claims, including non-sexual harassment allegations, heard in an open court setting rather than being compelled into private arbitration.