TransDigm Arbitration Ruling: Ohio Appeals Court Keeps Ex-GC's Harassment Suit in Court Under the EFAA

An Ohio appeals court ruled on October 22, 2026 that TransDigm Group Inc. cannot send any part of its former general counsel's discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit to arbitration, because her complaint pleads sexual harassment with enough detail to trigger the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. The TransDigm arbitration ruling, from the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Eighth Appellate District in Cleveland, reverses a Cuyahoga County trial court that had dismissed the claims and sends Jessica L. Warren's case back to the Court of Common Pleas to be litigated in open court.

The decision is the second time in eight months that the Eighth District has held that a single plausibly pleaded harassment claim takes an entire employment case out of arbitration. It brings Ohio's state appellate courts into line with the federal Sixth and Second Circuits, it involves one of the most senior employees a company can have (the chief legal and compliance officer), and it shows that an executive employment agreement's arbitration clause is no more durable under the EFAA than a front-line worker's onboarding form. The appellate opinion's neutral citation and panel were not yet publicly indexed when this article was written, so the account below relies on contemporaneous reporting by HCA Mag and Law360, the trial-court docket, TransDigm's SEC filings, and the Eighth District's earlier published EFAA opinion.

What did the Ohio appeals court decide in the TransDigm case?

The Eighth District did two things. First, it reversed the trial court's dismissal of Warren's sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation claims, finding that the complaint set out facts sufficient to keep all three claims alive at the pleading stage. Second, and because the harassment claim survived, it held that the EFAA made the parties' predispute Arbitration Agreement unenforceable for the whole lawsuit, so TransDigm cannot compel arbitration of any claim in it.

Law360's October 23 report summarized the core reasoning as a holding that sexual harassment allegations are not subject to arbitration. HCA Mag reported the broader point: the court treated the EFAA as covering the entire case rather than only the harassment count. That second step is what matters to employers, because Warren's suit also includes a breach-of-contract claim and a request for declaratory relief tied to her employment agreement, and her retaliation theory rests partly on antitrust compliance reports that have nothing to do with sex.

Nothing in the ruling decides whether Warren's allegations are true. TransDigm has not been found liable for anything, and the case returns to the trial court for discovery and, potentially, summary judgment and trial.

What is Jessica Warren alleging against TransDigm?

Warren joined TransDigm, the Cleveland-based aerospace components maker, in December 2018 and by February 2023 was serving as General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary. TransDigm's Form 8-K disclosed that she "ceased serving" in those roles effective July 7, 2025.

She filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on August 28, 2025 (No. CV-25-123681). The docket lists claims for breach of contract, gender discrimination and harassment, retaliation, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint as described in reporting and the docket summary:

• She reported two separate incidents of harassment by company executives, one in 2021 and one in 2024, connected to company management meetings.
• The individuals involved in both incidents were terminated but, the complaint alleges, received substantial severance despite no contractual entitlement to it.
• When she reported the 2024 incident, the co-chief operating officer allegedly asked what she had done to cause the assault; when she raised the broader pattern, the then-CEO allegedly told her she was "making a mountain out of a molehill."
• She also raised antitrust compliance concerns in her role as chief compliance officer.
• In July 2025 she learned she would be replaced; she alleges she was removed from her role, replaced by a less qualified male attorney, and had her compensation prematurely terminated.

TransDigm's response to the allegations was not available in the materials reviewed, and its position on the merits should be assumed to be a denial until it says otherwise.

Timeline of Warren v. TransDigm

Date	Event	Source
December 2018	Warren joins TransDigm	HCA Mag
2021	First reported harassment incident (per complaint)	HCA Mag
March 3, 2022	EFAA enacted and effective for disputes arising on or after that date	Pub. L. 117-90
February 2023	Serving as General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary	HCA Mag; SEC filings
2024	Second reported harassment incident (per complaint)	HCA Mag
July 7, 2025	Warren ceases serving as GC, CCO and Secretary	TransDigm Form 8-K
August 28, 2025	Complaint filed, Cuyahoga County C.P. No. CV-25-123681	Trellis; Law.com Radar
September 3, 2025	Suit first reported	Law360; Law.com Corporate Counsel
2025-2026	Trial court rules for TransDigm, dismissing the discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims	HCA Mag; Law360
October 22, 2026	Eighth District reverses; EFAA bars arbitration of entire case	HCA Mag; Law360

Why can't TransDigm force the lawsuit into arbitration?

Because the EFAA overrides the arbitration clause once a harassment claim is properly in the case. Under 9 U.S.C. § 402(a), at the election of the person alleging a sexual harassment dispute, "no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to" that dispute. Warren filed under state law, in state court, and elected not to arbitrate.

Three features of the statute did the work:

1. It applies in state court. The EFAA amended the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) itself, so it binds Ohio courts applying the FAA just as it binds federal courts. A company cannot avoid it by litigating a motion to compel in a state forum.
2. A court, not an arbitrator, decides whether it applies. Section 402(b) says applicability is "determined under Federal law" and must be decided "by a court, rather than an arbitrator," regardless of any Delegation Clause. Even a carefully drafted clause sending Gateway Questions and Arbitrability to the arbitrator could not keep this dispute away from the Cuyahoga County bench.
3. The trigger is a pleaded claim, not a proven one. Ohio's Eighth District, in its earlier Hansbrough decision, reviewed the complaint de novo under Ohio's notice-pleading standard and asked whether the post-enactment facts, if true, could support a sexual harassment claim. The TransDigm panel applied the same sufficiency lens: because the harassment claim survived dismissal, the EFAA attached.

The timing issue also favored Warren. The EFAA applies to disputes and claims that arise or accrue on or after March 3, 2022. The complaint pleads a 2024 incident and a 2025 separation, both after the effective date. Under the Eighth Circuit's reading in Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 23-3201 (Aug. 5, 2024), a "dispute" arises when a real conflict or controversy exists between the parties, which makes a 2024-2025 dispute comfortably within the statute even if one underlying incident predates it.

Does the EFAA cover the whole case or only the sexual harassment claim?

In Ohio's Eighth District, the whole case. Once a plaintiff plausibly pleads a sexual harassment dispute, the arbitration agreement cannot be enforced against any claim in the same lawsuit, including breach-of-contract, retaliation and non-sex discrimination claims.

That rule turns on the word "case" in § 402(a). Employers have argued that the statute should be read claim by claim, so that only the harassment count stays in court and everything else goes to arbitration. The Eighth District rejected that argument in Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey, P.C., 2026-Ohio-657 (released February 26, 2026), and applied it again here. Federal appellate courts that have reached the question agree:

• The Sixth Circuit, whose rulings bind federal courts in Ohio, held 2-1 in Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP, No. 25-5210 (Feb. 25, 2026), that a plausibly pleaded Title VII harassment claim made the arbitration agreement unenforceable for the plaintiff's unrelated ADA failure-to-accommodate claim too.
• The Second Circuit held in Diaz-Roa v. Hermes Law, P.C., No. 24-3223 (Sept. 30, 2026), on the statutory text alone, that "case" means all claims brought together in one lawsuit.

For TransDigm, the practical effect is that Warren's antitrust-related retaliation theory and her contract claims, which might otherwise have gone to an arbitrator under her employment agreement, now travel with the harassment claim to a public courtroom.

How the TransDigm arbitration ruling fits Ohio and federal EFAA law

The ruling is best read as the Eighth District consolidating a rule rather than inventing one. The table compares it with the decisions that shape EFAA motion practice in Ohio and the leading federal circuits.

Decision	Court and date	Plaintiff's role	EFAA trigger	Scope holding	Result
Warren v. TransDigm Group Inc.	Ohio 8th Dist., Oct. 22, 2026	General counsel / chief compliance officer	Harassment claim pleaded with sufficient detail to survive dismissal	Entire case	Dismissal reversed; no arbitration of any claim
Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey, P.C., 2026-Ohio-657	Ohio 8th Dist., Feb. 26, 2026	Law-firm shareholder	Post-March 3, 2022 facts that could support an Ohio harassment claim (de novo, notice pleading)	Entire case, including claims against the managing attorney	Denial of arbitration affirmed; waiver argument moot
Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP, No. 25-5210	6th Cir., Feb. 25, 2026 (2-1)	Paralegal	Plausible Title VII harassment claim	Entire case, including ADA claim	Denial of arbitration affirmed
Diaz-Roa v. Hermes Law, P.C., No. 24-3223	2d Cir., Sept. 30, 2026	Law-firm employee	Harassment claim within the EFAA	Entire case ("case" = all claims in the suit)	Denial of arbitration affirmed
Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 23-3201	8th Cir., Aug. 5, 2024	Restaurant employee	Dispute arose when suit was filed, not at pre-suit correspondence	Timing ruling	Denial of arbitration affirmed

Two features distinguish the TransDigm arbitration ruling within that line. It is the first of these appellate decisions to involve a public company's chief legal officer, whose arbitration obligation typically sits in a negotiated executive employment agreement rather than a standard-form handbook acknowledgment. And it arrived on review of a dismissal: the appellate court had to restore the harassment claim before it could apply the EFAA, which shows how closely the arbitration question and the Ohio Civ.R. 12(B)(6) question are now intertwined.

Can TransDigm appeal the arbitration ruling?

Yes, but only by asking the Supreme Court of Ohio to take the case. In Ohio, an order granting or denying a stay pending arbitration is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2711.02(C), which is why the arbitration question reached the Eighth District before trial. The next step is a discretionary appeal, which under the Supreme Court of Ohio's Rules of Practice is ordinarily due within 45 days of the court of appeals' judgment. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepts only cases of public or great general interest or that raise substantial constitutional questions.

Because the scope of the EFAA is a question of federal law under § 402(b), a final Ohio decision could in theory be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court by petition for certiorari. The current alignment of the Sixth Circuit, the Second Circuit and both published Eighth District opinions on the whole-case rule makes that path difficult without a split. No report of a further appeal by TransDigm had surfaced as of October 27, 2026.

What the TransDigm ruling means for employers, executives and claimants' counsel

Do executive employment agreements still require arbitration after the EFAA?

They do for most disputes, but not for any case that includes a plausibly pleaded sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute arising after March 3, 2022. A negotiated executive agreement gets no special treatment: § 402 voids "predispute" agreements regardless of the employee's seniority or bargaining power, and only a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate, signed after the conflict arises, falls outside the statute.

What it means for employers and drafters

• Expect arbitration fights to be won or lost on the complaint. Ohio courts now ask first whether the harassment allegations would survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. Defense counsel who move to compel and to dismiss together should assume the arbitration question rises or falls with the dismissal question.
• Severability language does not split a case. A Severability Clause can save the rest of an agreement from an unenforceable term, but it cannot convert a single "case" into arbitrable and non-arbitrable halves when the statute operates on the case as a whole.
• Delegation clauses do not reach EFAA applicability. Section 402(b) reserves that question to the court. Drafting resources are better spent on clear post-dispute arbitration offers, confidentiality terms the parties can agree to after a dispute arises, and internal investigation protocols.
• Compliance-function plaintiffs raise added risk. A general counsel or compliance officer who alleges retaliation for reporting both harassment and other compliance problems can bring the non-harassment theory into court alongside the EFAA claim.

What it means for claimants' counsel

• Plead the harassment facts with specificity, dates and post-March 3, 2022 conduct; that is the gateway to keeping every other claim in court.
• Ohio state court is now a predictable EFAA forum, with two published Eighth District opinions and a Sixth Circuit decision pointing the same way.

What it means for mass arbitration practice

The EFAA is an individual election, and its whole-case rule cuts both ways for coordinated employee claims. Counsel organizing Mass Arbitration campaigns against an employer cannot use harassment allegations to pull a group of unrelated wage or contract claims into court, because each claimant's election attaches only to that claimant's own case. But where individual claimants do plead harassment, the employer loses the forum for all of their claims, which changes settlement leverage in Coordinated Counsel campaigns that mix harassment and non-harassment theories.

What to watch next

• Whether TransDigm seeks discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Ohio before the 45-day window closes.
• Whether the Eighth District's opinion is designated for publication with a 2026-Ohio citation, which would add binding weight within Cuyahoga County and persuasive weight statewide.
• How the Common Pleas court handles discovery into the 2021 and 2024 incidents, the severance payments and the antitrust compliance reports on remand.
• Whether other Ohio appellate districts adopt Hansbrough and TransDigm, or whether a split develops that the Supreme Court of Ohio would resolve.

FAQ

What did the Ohio appeals court decide in the TransDigm case?

On October 22, 2026 the Eighth District reversed the trial court's dismissal of Jessica Warren's sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation claims and held that TransDigm cannot compel arbitration of any part of her case under the EFAA.

Why can't TransDigm force its former general counsel's lawsuit into arbitration?

Because her complaint pleads a sexual harassment claim with enough detail to survive dismissal, and 9 U.S.C. § 402(a) makes predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable, at the plaintiff's election, for any case relating to a sexual harassment dispute.

Does the EFAA cover the whole case or only the sexual harassment claim?

In Ohio's Eighth District, the Sixth Circuit and the Second Circuit, it covers the whole case, so contract, retaliation and other discrimination claims filed in the same lawsuit stay in court with the harassment claim.

Can TransDigm appeal the arbitration ruling?

TransDigm can ask the Supreme Court of Ohio to accept a discretionary appeal, ordinarily within 45 days of the appellate judgment; acceptance is not guaranteed, and the case otherwise returns to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Has TransDigm been found liable?

No. The ruling addresses only whether the claims were adequately pleaded and where they will be heard. The allegations have not been tested on the merits.