Ohio ruling strikes down arbitration clause in sexual harassment dispute

What the court decided next is what employers and HR teams need to pay attention to. The ruling held that once the law applies, it voids the arbitration agreement not just for the harassment claim, but for the entire case. Every count – retaliation, gender discrimination, post-employment retaliation, aiding and abetting – all of it moves to court. The harassment allegation, in effect, becomes the key that unlocks the courthouse door for every related claim.

The appellate court noted it could find no prior Ohio state court decision applying this federal law, making the ruling a first of its kind in the state.

For HR professionals, the practical message is straightforward. Arbitration clauses in employment agreements have long been treated as a reliable way to manage litigation risk. They keep disputes private, limit costs, and reduce unpredictability. This ruling does not eliminate them, but it does place a significant condition on them: if a workplace harassment allegation arises after March 3, 2022, an employee can choose to bypass arbitration entirely – and take everything to court with them.

The case now heads back to the trial court for proceedings on the merits. Hansbrough’s allegations remain exactly that – allegations – and nothing has been proven or adjudicated on the facts. But the legal framework the appellate court established on February 26, 2026 is now on the books in Ohio, and its reach is anything but narrow.

For any organization still treating its arbitration agreements as a near-complete shield against employment litigation, this case is a timely prompt to revisit that assumption with legal counsel.