Trevor Decloedt alleged that a coworker repeatedly condemned him for being gay, told him that homosexuality was sinful, threatened to kill him, and touched or forcefully grabbed his hair. Decloedt repeatedly reported the conduct to supervisors and human resources, but he alleged that they took no action. He alleged severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts, and that he was later terminated without a meaningful explanation.
Decloedt sued RadNet Management, related RadNet entities, his former supervisor, and the coworker, asserting 11 state-law causes of action, including hostile-work-environment and sexual-harassment claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employer moved to compel arbitration under an agreement Decloedt had signed when his employment began.
The California Superior Court denied the motion, finding that Decloedt had alleged sexual harassment covered by the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which makes pre-dispute arbitration agreements unenforceable for cases relating to sexual harassment. The employer appealed, arguing that harassment based on sexual orientation was not “sexual harassment” under FEHA and that Decloedt’s allegations were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a viable harassment claim.
The California Court of Appeal rejected those arguments and affirmed. Relying in part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination based on homosexuality necessarily involves discrimination because of sex, the Court held that sexual-orientation harassment is a form of sexual harassment under FEHA. Sexual harassment does not have to involve sexual advances, sexual desire, or explicitly sexual conduct; the critical question is whether the employee was harassed because of sex. Decloedt’s allegations of repeated anti-gay condemnation, threats, unwanted physical contact, and an assault described severe or pervasive harassment motivated by hostility toward his sexual orientation. Because Decloedt sufficiently alleged at least one sexual-harassment claim, the EFAA exempted his entire case from compelled arbitration.
Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc., No. B343963 (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2026; certified for publication July 7, 2026).