Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-07131
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Tantaros v. Fox News, Judge Carter held the Federal Arbitration Act preempted New York’s arbitration ban and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Andrea Tantaros’s complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and the defendants obtained dismissal of the case. The opinion did not order arbitration, but it held that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7515 could not shield Tantaros from arbitration because the Federal Arbitration Act preempted that state law.
What happened
In Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC, Andrea Tantaros asked the court to stop arbitration of her New York discrimination and sexual-harassment claims. The defendants removed her case from state court to federal court and later moved to dismiss it.
The court ruled that New York law, which generally barred certain mandatory arbitration provisions for sexual-harassment claims, conflicted with the Federal Arbitration Act. Because federal law overrides conflicting state law, the court concluded that the New York statute could not protect Tantaros from arbitration. The court also said a 2021 federal law concerning arbitration of sexual-assault and sexual-harassment claims did not apply retroactively.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court dismissed the case based on the conflict between the New York statute and federal arbitration law and did not address the Estate’s alternative argument based on an earlier decision.
The detailed version
- Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07131
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Andrea Tantaros filed the action in state court on July 15, 2019. She sought orders stopping arbitration of her sexual-harassment allegations and other discrimination claims, as well as a declaration that she could not be compelled to continue arbitrating those claims under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7515.
The defendants removed the case to federal court on July 30, 2019. Tantaros moved to return the case to state court, arguing that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied that motion, concluding that the case raised a substantial and disputed federal question: whether New York’s limits on mandatory arbitration conflicted with the Federal Arbitration Act. The Second Circuit later affirmed that decision.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 6, 2021. Tantaros opposed the motions through new counsel. The motions were fully briefed.
Legal issue
The central issue was whether New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7515 could prevent enforcement of an arbitration agreement covering Tantaros’s discrimination and sexual-harassment claims. Section 7515 generally prohibits contract provisions requiring mandatory arbitration of allegations or claims involving unlawful sexual-harassment discrimination, subject to federal-law limitations.
The Federal Arbitration Act generally requires arbitration agreements to be treated like other contracts and prevents states from categorically prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of claim. This conflict between federal and state law is called preemption: the federal law overrides the conflicting state rule.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on Supreme Court decisions stating that the Federal Arbitration Act displaces state laws that prohibit arbitration of particular categories of claims. It concluded that § 7515 directly conflicted with the Federal Arbitration Act and was therefore displaced in this case.
The court also addressed Tantaros’s argument based on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. The court stated that the Act, signed into law on March 3, 2022, did not apply retroactively because it was enacted after the arbitration agreement and lawsuit. The court stated that Tantaros’s remaining arguments lacked merit.
Disposition
The court granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF 100 and 104 and close the case. Because the court dismissed the complaint based on federal preemption, it did not address the Estate’s alternative dismissal argument based on collateral estoppel, a doctrine that can prevent relitigation of an issue previously decided.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.