Securitas loses arbitration push as EFAA keeps harassment case in court
On December 16, 2025, a California appeals court said Securitas couldn’t compel arbitration after an employee alleged sexual harassment and chose court.
The decision underscores how the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) can limit enforcement of workplace arbitration agreements.
The case began with a lawsuit filed by Francisco Quilala against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., along with two individual defendants, Reynaldo De La Cruz and Luis Castro. Quilala, who was hired in 2012 as a security employee, alleged sexual harassment and other claims related to his former employment.
According to the allegations, Quilala was assigned in April 2023 to work security at Oracle Park. The following month, a Securitas supervisor allegedly called him and said there had been a complaint about him being gay, asked intrusive questions about his sexual activity, commented that Quilala was “so embarrassing,” and said Quilala would be removed from his work assignment and have his hours reduced. Over the ensuing months, Quilala alleged rumors about his sexual orientation spread among coworkers. He also alleged he was removed from his work assignment and had his hours “substantially reduced,” and that a field supervisor repeatedly mocked him by referring to him as “Mrs. Quilala” whenever they met in person.
On Oct. 15, 2023, Quilala alleged he sent a written message to the field supervisor demanding the supervisor stop saying “Mrs. Quilala” and warning he would pursue legal action if the conduct continued. The next day, Quilala attended a meeting with various Securitas employees, including a district manager, two supervisors, and a human resources representative. Quilala alleged he was informed they did not appreciate his written complaint and that they “badger[ed]” and “yell[ed]” at him. Securitas terminated Quilala’s employment shortly thereafter, according to the decision.
Quilala later filed a complaint alleging 22 causes of action, including “sex, gender,” and “sexual orientation harassment” under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Securitas moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement Quilala signed during onboarding. The agreement provided that employment-related disputes would be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and required disputes to be resolved through final and binding arbitration, not by court or jury trial.
In opposition, Quilala argued the court must determine the agreement’s validity and enforceability, but he did not specifically raise the EFAA. The trial court nevertheless denied the motion on that basis in a tentative ruling, concluding the EFAA barred enforcement because Quilala alleged a valid sexual harassment cause of action. At the hearing, the defendants argued Quilala could not rely on the EFAA because he had not raised it, challenged whether the complaint stated a valid sexual harassment claim, and argued that any non-harassment claims should still proceed to arbitration. The trial court rejected those arguments and adopted its tentative ruling.
The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed. It held the trial court had an obligation to determine whether the dispute fell within the FAA’s scope, which required evaluating whether the EFAA barred arbitration. It also found no error in the court proceeding without supplemental briefing, given the tentative ruling and the parties’ opportunity to argue the issue at the hearing.
The appeals court further agreed Quilala’s allegations were sufficient to state a sexual harassment claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), bringing the dispute within the EFAA. It also concluded Quilala did not need to expressly invoke the EFAA; filing in court and opposing arbitration was enough to constitute an “election” to proceed in court.
For HR readers, the headline takeaway is practical: once the court concluded Quilala’s allegations stated a valid sexual harassment claim, the EFAA meant the case could not be forced into arbitration if Quilala wanted to stay in court. The court also rejected the employer’s push to separate the lawsuit and send the non-harassment claims to arbitration, concluding the statute’s wording did not authorize that approach.
The order denying arbitration was affirmed, and Quilala may recover his costs on appeal.
