The firing of a New York Jets executive is forcing a New Jersey appeals court to define boundaries for when employment suits relating to sexual harassment — but not involving a victim — must be kept in open court.
A Wednesday oral argument pitted the Jets — and a federal and state law preference for enforcing arbitration agreements — against a growing number of federal and state cases that have extended application of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.
That law, enacted by Congress at the height of the #MeToo movement, seeks to shed light on employers’ workplace abuse by prohibiting forced arbitration of sexual harassment suits. However, ambiguity in the statute’s language has led courts to wrestle with cases of retaliation in which reporters of harassment against other people seek to bring claims in open court while employees demand confidential resolution.
“If you sustain this arbitration order you would be stretching the EFAA beyond its text undercutting well-settled policies for arbitration, and opening the flood gates to courts for matters that belong in arbitration,” the Jets’ lawyer, Foley & Lardner partner Jonathan L. Israel, told the Superior Court Appellate Division.
All three members of the Superior Court Appellate Division panel voiced concern about how far the EFAA could be stretched
“I like your description as a ‘gateway case’ rather than scope,” Judge Robert M. Vinci said, quoting from the Jets’ argument. “What we have here is a case that has nothing to do with harassment or abuse — it’s just coincidentally that the underlying facts have something to do with it in her email.”
Allegations and ‘Conspiracy’
----------------------------
Over the course of 15 years Elaine Chen worked her way through the Jets finance department up to the rank of vice president, but was fired in 2025 after getting tangled up in a sexual harassment investigation.
Her case centers on how the Jets responded to an anonymous email sent to team staff claiming the team’s president, Hymie Elhai, was harassing women. Chen claims she was fired in retaliation for stating that she had heard of harassment by Elhai but didn’t know specifics.
The team said that it found no evidence of those underlying claims. Instead, it claimed it found a “conspiracy” involving Chen’s husband, who also worked for the organization, wrongly boosted those allegations.
After the team demanded his work phone, he tried to delete thousands of texts exchanged with Chen. Based on his communications with her, and alleged dishonesty in her responses to company questions, the Jets said Chen was properly terminated.
She sued, and the trial court rejected the Jets’ effort to remove her claims to arbitration. The judge found her claims were sufficiently “related” to sexual harassment allegations to fall under the EFAA, that the Jets arbitration agreement was convoluted, and that marital privilege protected the communications between Chen and her husband.
“It’s an easy question. The EFAA makes clear that it applies at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute,” said Chen’s lawyer, Lenzo & Reis partner Claudia A. Reis. “The whole situation arose from a sexual harassment dispute.”
Continuum
---------
Courts have come to [different conclusions](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/sex-harassment-arbitration-exemption-covers-all-suit-claims) about how far the law could extend, pointing to a “continuum” of plaintiffs that could be covered by the law, Judge Morris G. Smith said.
“The question is whether someone who is not the reporter or the victim, but argues that but for some allegation in the organization they would not be in the circumstances they’re in,” is covered, he said. “They’re just arguing the next point on the continuum.”
Israel argued that going this far would undermine the Federal Arbitration Act by allowing plaintiffs to get around arbitration by alleging any sexual harassment facts.
But the purpose of the law goes beyond protecting victims to shedding light on harassment, said pro-employee amicus groups National Employment Lawyers Association and New Jersey Association for Justice.
“Predators rely on silence,” William D. Wright, attorney for the New Jersey Association for Justice said. Agreeing with the Jets “would close the door when cases relate to a sexual harassment dispute.”
Judge Mara Zazzali-Hogan also heard the case.
The case is Chen v. New York Jets, LLC, N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., No. A-000934-25, oral argument held 10/7/26.