Second Circuit Heard PricewaterhouseCoopers Harassment Appeal
Appellate judges scrutinized whether a sexual harassment lawsuit against the firm should proceed to arbitration.
Updated on Sept. 21, 2026 in Women’s Issues
Live Poll
Should discrimination and harassment lawsuits be resolved in public courts rather than private arbitration?
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed arguments in a sexual harassment case involving PricewaterhouseCoopers. The legal proceedings focused on whether the claims filed by a former principal must be handled through mandatory arbitration.
Why it matters
This case highlights the ongoing tension between mandatory arbitration agreements and the ability of employees to seek legal redress for workplace harassment. The court's eventual ruling could establish significant precedents for how large professional services firms handle internal misconduct allegations.
Nina Owens, an Asian American hired as a principal in 2019, alleged that male colleagues blocked her from promotions and claimed credit for her work. The firm argues that the specific allegations do not qualify as sexual in nature under their policy.
The players
Nina Owens
She is a former principal at PricewaterhouseCoopers who has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the firm.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
It is a global professional services network that is currently defending itself against allegations of harassment and discriminatory workplace practices.
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
This federal appellate court hears appeals from districts within Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.
The details
Nina Owens claims that male colleagues made disparaging comments regarding women in leadership positions during her tenure. While the firm contends these claims fall outside the scope of sexual harassment, the appellate panel appeared inclined to allow the litigation to proceed in court rather than private arbitration.
Timeline
Nina Owens was hired as a principal at the firm in 2019.
The court heard arguments regarding the arbitration appeal on September 21, 2026.
Culture Shift
The case mirrors a broader societal trend where employees are increasingly challenging forced arbitration clauses that limit public transparency. It marks a departure from historical norms where such disputes were routinely resolved through private channels away from public scrutiny.
This case may influence how corporate HR policies are structured regarding internal dispute resolution for employees across the country. Readers may see changes in how companies handle future reports of harassment if the court limits the scope of mandatory arbitration.
The takeaway
This case serves as a reminder for employees to review the arbitration clauses within their own employment contracts upon hiring. Understanding your legal rights before a conflict arises remains essential for those navigating professional workplaces.
Further reading
For more context on legal protections and workplace equity, visit the Women’s Issues section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Bloomberglaw.
Live Poll
Should discrimination and harassment lawsuits be resolved in public courts rather than private arbitration?
