While the letter is limited to sexual harassment claims, this is a stunning development and signals a strong shift.

As the Attorneys General noted:

“While there may be benefits to arbitration provisions in other contexts, they do not extend to sexual harassment claims. Victims of such serious misconduct should not be constrained to pursue relief from decision makers who are not trained as judges, are not qualified to act as courts of law, and are not positioned to ensure that such victims are accorded both procedural and substantive due process. Every single attorney.

Additional concerns arise from the secrecy requirements of arbitration clauses, which disserve the public interest by keeping both the harassment complaints and any settlements confidential. This veil of secrecy may then prevent other persons similarly situated from learning of the harassment claims so that they, too, might pursue relief. Ending mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims would help to put a stop to the culture of silence that protects perpetrators at the cost of their victims.”

Check back here for more updates. Or follow us on Twitter: @GordonLawGrp

This bill is in its infancy, and currently bans only arbitration of sexual harassment. We have no doubt that much more work will be done on this, and we are working with legislators on the language now. Stay tuned for updates!

Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment: A Critical Step Toward Justice for Employees

In a landmark move for workers’ rights, the U.S. Congress has passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act, a significant piece of legislation designed to give employees more power to seek justice in cases of sexual harassment. This new law effectively ends the practice of forcing employees into mandatory arbitration when they file claims related to sexual harassment. Instead, employees will have the option to bring such claims to court, where they can seek a fair and transparent legal process.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act is a victory for employees, particularly women, who have historically been discouraged or outright blocked from pursuing their rights in public courts. By making it easier for victims of sexual harassment to seek redress, this law ensures that victims are no longer forced into private, often biased, arbitration proceedings that favor employers.

What the Ending Forced Arbitration Act Means for Employees

Prior to the passing of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act, many employees who experienced sexual harassment were bound by clauses in their employment contracts that required disputes to be resolved through private arbitration, rather than through the courts. Arbitration is a process where a neutral third party makes a binding decision on the dispute, but it often lacks the transparency and fairness of a courtroom trial. Moreover, employers often hold an advantage in these proceedings, and arbitration decisions typically cannot be appealed.

With the new law in place, victims of sexual harassment now have the ability to take their claims to court, where they will have access to a jury of their peers and greater procedural protections. This change represents a crucial step toward achieving justice and accountability in workplaces across the country.

Click here for article.

Click here for radio interview podcast.

Of course, if you’re experiencing sexual harassment or any other issues in the workplace, give us a call.

Gordon Interviewed About Matt Lauer Termination: Insights on Workplace Harassment and Employment Law

In a recent interview, Gordon of Gordon Law Group provided expert legal analysis and commentary on the highly publicized Matt Lauer termination case, a situation that garnered national attention due to allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct. Lauer, the former NBC Today Show anchor, was dismissed in 2017 after accusations surfaced that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Gordon’s insights shed light on the legal implications of such high-profile terminations and what both employees and employers can learn from this case in terms of workplace harassment, legal protections, and the termination process.

Key Takeaways from Gordon’s Interview on Matt Lauer’s Termination

In the interview, Gordon addressed several critical issues related to Matt Lauer’s termination and the broader implications for workplace dynamics, particularly when it comes to harassment allegations in the workplace. Some of the key points Gordon made include:

1. Legal Protections Against Workplace Harassment: Lauer’s termination highlights the importance of employers creating a safe work environment that is free from harassment. Gordon emphasized that, under both federal and state laws, employees have a right to work in an environment where they are not subjected to discrimination or harassment based on gender, race, or any other protected status. Employers who fail to address complaints effectively may face serious legal consequences, as seen in the high-profile cases involving public figures like Lauer.
2. The Importance of Clear Workplace Policies: Gordon noted that one of the biggest takeaways from the Matt Lauer case is the necessity of clear, enforced workplace policies around harassment, reporting mechanisms, and the consequences of misconduct. He pointed out that while NBC initially dismissed Lauer following the allegations, their failure to publicly disclose their investigative process led to questions about the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process. Employers must ensure that policies are in place that not only address what constitutes harassment but also provide a clear path for employees to report concerns without fear of retaliation.
3. Employment Contracts and Termination Clauses: As part of the discussion, Gordon addressed the legal aspects of termination clauses and severance agreements, which play a key role in cases like Lauer’s. He explained that many employees, especially high-profile individuals, have negotiated severance packages that include terms about public disclosures and non-compete clauses. In Lauer’s case, NBC and the former anchor likely had legal agreements in place that governed his departure, highlighting the importance of understanding one’s employment contract and rights when facing potential termination.

(Listen)

Gordon Interviewed on WBZ NewsRadio About Workplace Sexual Harassment: Key Insights and Legal Advice

In a recent interview on WBZ NewsRadio, Gordon of Gordon Law Group shared his expertise on workplace sexual harassment and the legal rights of employees facing such misconduct. As sexual harassment continues to be a major issue in workplaces across the country, Gordon’s insights provided valuable information on how employees can protect themselves, what employers must do to prevent harassment, and the legal recourse available to victims. His interview comes at a critical time as workplace harassment laws evolve and more people come forward with their stories. Gordon interviewed on wbz

Key Takeaways from Gordon’s Interview on WBZ NewsRadio

During his interview on WBZ, Gordon discussed several important aspects of workplace sexual harassment, including legal protections, employer responsibilities, and the steps employees should take if they believe they’ve been harassed. Here are some of the main points he highlighted:

1. Understanding Workplace Sexual Harassment: Gordon explained that sexual harassment can take many forms, including unwanted advances, inappropriate comments, or hostile work environments. He emphasized that harassment can occur not only between co-workers but also between employees and supervisors or even clients. It’s important for workers to recognize that harassment isn’t limited to physical behavior; it can include verbal or non-verbal actions that create a hostile or intimidating work environment.
2. Employees’ Rights and Legal Protections: Gordon outlined the legal protections available to employees under both federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Massachusetts’ own anti-discrimination laws. He stressed that employees have the right to a safe and respectful workplace, and they should not have to tolerate behavior that undermines their dignity or well-being. Gordon interviewed on wbz
3. What to Do If You’re a Victim of Sexual Harassment: One of the most critical pieces of advice Gordon gave during his interview was for employees to document any incidents of harassment and report them to their employer immediately. He recommended using a formal complaint process and, if necessary, seeking legal counsel to protect their rights. Gordon also emphasized that retaliation for reporting harassment is illegal, and employees should not hesitate to take legal action if they face retaliation.
4. Employers’ Legal Obligations: Gordon discussed the role of employers in preventing sexual harassment and addressing claims effectively. Employers are legally required to maintain a work environment that is free from harassment and to take prompt action when complaints are made. He advised that companies should have clear anti-harassment policies in place, provide training to all employees, and ensure that there is a transparent and effective process for reporting and investigating claims.

Workplace disputes at major financial firms increasingly turn on the very definition of the worker’s status—whether the individual is categorized as an employee or an independent contractor—and the enforceability of the contracts workers are required to sign. Philip Gordon highlighted that many corporate employment issues now surface not because companies lack policies, but because policies are implemented in ways that fail practical fairness balancing, omit required interactive legal review steps, suppress transparency, or push disputes into private arbitration instead of open courts.

Major Employment Issues Discussed by Philip Gordon

His Washington Post quote focused on several evolving areas affecting financial firms, including:

• Workplace compliance obligations — Corporate policies cannot remove statutory protections through careful wording alone. Compliance frameworks must reflect legal realities, not only internal preference.
• Corporate hiring structure challenges — Candidate evaluation bias, résumé assumption stacking, pipeline-driven familiarity hiring, leadership stereotype looping, and subjective screening loopholes weaken fairness and expose companies to risk.
• Employee protections and contract enforceability — Arbitration-first dispute routing, onboarding classification agreements, contractor-only labeling strategies, retaliation suppression frameworks, and individual-only claim enforcement change where disputes are heard but do not remove liability for discrimination or retaliation harm.
• Regulatory oversight in financial workplaces — Courts remain divided on mandatory arbitration enforceability, especially when agreements attempt to override litigation rights, collective action, or classification challenges.
• Workforce structuring trends — Firms increasingly label workers as vendors, consultants, partners, or contractors. These wording strategies often lead to classification disputes and legal repercussions when employment realities point elsewhere.

Why These Employment Ramifications Matter

The employment issues raised surrounding Weinstein & Co. reflect nationwide trends affecting financial firms, broadcasting companies, gig-style contractor labeling systems, franchise staffing pipelines, onboarded contract signers, misclassified 1099 workers, retaliation-pressured complainants, accommodations-denied workers, and others whose legal rights may be restricted through process strategy rather than law itself.

View Article

A widely referenced study from the University of Oregon revealed that without a morally compelling legal foundation, sexual harassment training becomes a hollow compliance exercise rather than a meaningful workplace solution. According to the study, “Without a morally compelling legal core to animate the purpose of the training and provide coherence to the rules, harassment training becomes a hollow exercise in corporate compliance. The experience of attending a standard harassment training eventually starts to resemble a meal at McDonald’s.”

View the original research study:

When harassment training lacks ethical purpose, employees often perceive it as:

• A mandatory corporate requirement
• A generic slideshow without emotional or moral impact
• A fear-based legal warning rather than behavioral guidance
• A repetitive session ignored after completion
• A compliance checkbox NOT culture change

Why standard training fails:

1. No moral or ethical storytelling
2. No legal purpose framing beyond punishment
3. No emphasis on real human impact
4. No leadership involvement or accountability culture
5. No behavioral reinforcement after training
6. No employee-safe reporting mechanism education

What better training SHOULD include:

To improve corporate sexual harassment training effectiveness, companies must shift from boilerplate compliance to values-based education reinforced by:

• Real legal case examples with moral context
• Leadership participation and workplace commitment statements
• Human narratives showing emotional and career impact
• Interactive decision-making scenarios
• Long-term reinforcement beyond yearly sessions
• Clear guidance on protected reporting and retaliation laws

Learn how we support workplace victims:

If you or someone you know is experiencing workplace harassment, visit our legal services page:

If you are facing sexual harassment at work, don’t wait—your rights, career, and well-being matter. Contact legal experts who can help you take action, protect your workplace position, and explore your legal options under state and federal law

If you’re experiencing sexual harassment at work, give us a call.
Our legal team at Gordon LLP is here to listen, guide, and take action when training programs fail workplace victims.

This controversy escalated when senior student Lindsay Wrobel announced she would begin a University of Rochester sexual harassment hunger strike until the school takes decisive action. Speaking to the student newspaper Campus Times, she emphasized that the safety, education, and future opportunities of others on campus outweigh her personal academic progress.

According to public statements, eight individuals filed formal complaints, including two current faculty members. The case raises important institutional questions surrounding:

• Student and employee reporting pathways
• Anti-retaliation protections
• Campus employment law responsibilities
• Professor-student power imbalance
• Workplace safety obligations

Ms. Wrobel told Campus Times:

“My individual education matters less than the educations and livelihoods of everyone on campus.”

This protest highlights a recurring issue in academic institutions—policies alone do not create safety if enforcement lacks transparency, accountability, and urgency.

View Article

Workplace arbitration clauses have become one of the most debated areas in modern employment law. Media figure and workplace rights advocate Gretchen Carlson recently shared a firsthand account about arbitration clauses and sexual harassment, offering rare visibility into how these agreements can affect reporting options, legal access, claim transparency, bargaining fairness, and employer accountability.

In her remarks, Gretchen Carlson described arbitration clauses not just as contract wording, but as structural tools that may allow workplace misconduct—especially sexual harassment and discrimination claims—to remain hidden from public oversight. When disputes are routed away from courts, patterns of misconduct may go unchallenged at scale, reducing institutional pressure to correct harmful workplace environments.

What Are Arbitration Clauses in the Workplace?

Arbitration clauses are provisions written into employment contracts, onboarding paperwork and compensation acknowledgments that require employees to resolve disputes privately, often before a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury. The agreements typically include:

• A waiver of the right to file employment claims in open court
• Individual dispute routing instead of collective action transparency
• Private resolution instead of public precedent development
• Employer privacy protection and limited discovery rules

These waivers frequently surface in industries with misclassification risk, financial services oversight, internship dispute settlements, HR policy interpretation stacking, semantic contract label engineering, contractor-only workforce framing, retaliation-safe dispute suppression, hiring bias loops, and institutional arbitration-first routing pipelines.

Why Arbitration Clauses Can Impact Sexual Harassment Cases

Arbitration clauses can materially impact claim strategy because:

• Misconduct patterns stay private instead of public record
• Workers may fear retaliation when reporting before resigning
• No judicial precedent is created to pressure systemic reform
• Settlement bargaining power remains imbalanced and individualized
• Internal compliance frameworks may hollow out remedies by process design

Importantly, arbitration does not remove employer liability for discrimination, retaliation or harassment—it only changes where the case is heard and how the process unfolds. However, many claims collapse not due to legal merit, but due to arbitration timing, wording ambiguity, process design loopholes, contractor-only labeling confusion, documentation collapse at exit, interactive review omission, unfair screening stacking loops, or private routing before misconduct patterns are legally evaluated.

Who This Applies To

This topic affects:

• Employees required to sign arbitration agreements at onboarding
• Workers mislabeled as contractors under employer-like control conditions
• Caregivers, interns, applicants, reporters and accommodations requesters
• HR compliance teams balancing undue hardship and reporting review duties
• Plaintiffs documenting retaliation or discrimination reporting barriers

This case insight is especially valuable because it comes from an individual who challenged arbitration consequences firsthand and has since advocated for contract transparency in reporting systems.

View Article

These changes were widely seen as response to evolving workforce needs, demographic shifts, caregiver responsibility growth, and rising workplace discrimination claims nationwide.

New York Key Bills That Increased Worker Protections

The new legislation targeted enforcement gaps, ambiguous legal language, and accommodation loopholes affecting smaller workplaces. Here are five of most notable updates:

1. Sexual Harassment Protections Now Cover All Employers

Previously, companies with fewer than 4 employees were exempt under the human rights statute. Now, all employers in New York are covered in sexual harassment cases, regardless of workforce size. This means:

• No more minimum-employee exemptions for harassment claims
• Protection applies to interns, contractors, hourly staff, and small-business workers
• Covers hostile environment and retaliation cases when harassment reported

2. Pay Equity Law Strengthened With Clearer Language

The equal pay statute was updated to correct a long-debated phrase: “any factor other than sex.” The new law now requires “a bona fide factor other than sex” such as:

• Education, verified training, or industry certification
• Demonstrated experience in similar job duties
• Licensed or accredited role-specific skill requirements

This change makes pay decisions more defensible while preventing vague salary exceptions.

3. Familial Status Becomes a Protected Category

For first time, familial status joins protected categories under New York’s Human Rights Law. This covers discrimination tied to:

• Being parent or primary caregiver
• Supporting dependent family members
• Denial of opportunity due to household responsibility assumptions

This reform aligned statute more closely with modern workforce households.

4. Legal Remedies Expanded But Only for Sex-Based Discrimination

Under new rules, attorney’s fees may now be awarded as damages in sex-based discrimination cases only. In other forms of discrimination, fee awards are still not permitted. This means:

• Higher chance of obtaining counsel for gender discrimination cases
• Stronger deterrent for pay and hiring bias by employers
• More complete remedies for victims with imbalance bargaining power

5. Pregnancy Discrimination Must Be Treated as Temporary Disability

Employers are now required to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions — as long as worker can perform job duties in “reasonable manner.” Covered accommodations include:

• Temporary removal from hazardous work
• Modified manual labor duty requirements
• Rest breaks when medically justified
• Workstation or schedule adjustments

Employees must verify condition with documentation. Once notice provided, employers must begin interactive accommodation discussions or risk liability.

Challenges Employers Now Face

Even companies with structured HR analytics may struggle applying inferences fairly. Courts now favor job-duty based analysis, documented reasoning, and transparent compensation benchmarking. Companies failing update policies may face claims tied to:

• Hiring bias
• Pay inequity
• Retaliation after internal reports
• Disparate impact from automated screening criteria

For questions or concerns about this new legislation, contact our office to speak with an attorney.