He kept a sexual harassment claim in his back pocket for months
A DoorDash worker tried to play the long game on a sexual harassment claim. A California appeals court said he played it too long.
The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling on October 5, 2026, finding the worker had waived his rights under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault (EFAA) and Sexual Harassment Act - the 2021 federal law that lets employees with sexual harassment claims sidestep mandatory arbitration and take their case to court.
The worker joined DoorDash in 2020 and took nine weeks of parental bonding leave in early 2023. According to his complaint, things went sideways from there. He alleged DoorDash retaliated against him for taking leave, denied him a comparable role on return, and terminated him late that year. A superior, he alleged, "repeatedly" pressed him about when he would take his remaining leave.
He sued in February 2024 over retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair competition. He left out a sexual harassment claim. That was deliberate.
When DoorDash moved to compel arbitration, the worker opposed it - but only argued no valid agreement existed. He never mentioned harassment or the EFAA. Only after the court signalled it would rule for DoorDash did he float adding a harassment claim "to avoid arbitration under federal law." The court compelled arbitration anyway.
Months later, he amended his arbitration demand to add sex-based harassment. He alleged DoorDash "discouraged through intimidation, ridicule, and insults its male employees from taking any parental leave" and that men were "made to feel like they were less than a man." The sole specific harassment he cited was already in his original complaint.
He filed a second lawsuit in April 2025 to void the arbitration agreement. The trial court sided with him.
DoorDash appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, 2-1.
The majority found the worker had withheld a known claim "for strategic purposes" - his own words - and let arbitration proceed without ever raising the EFAA. That was waiver by "clear and convincing evidence." The court distinguished the Ninth Circuit's recent Ding v. Structure Therapeutics decision, where waiver was rejected because that plaintiff uncovered her claim during discovery and invoked the EFAA immediately.
The lone dissenter called the conduct "more like a blunder" than a knowing surrender, comparing it to a chess player who loses their queen to a bishop they had not considered.
For HR teams managing arbitration programs, the EFAA does not work as a trapdoor. Employees who sit on known harassment claims while fighting arbitration on other grounds risk waiving their right to court altogether.
