A former shareholder at Marshall Dennehey has won a pivotal procedural victory in an ongoing workplace harassment dispute, as an Ohio appellate court ruled that his claims can proceed in court instead of being resolved through private arbitration.
The decision marks an important development in the
growing legal shift away from mandatory arbitration in harassment-related employment disputes particularly within the legal industry.
Court Blocks Arbitration Attempt
Keith Hansbrough, a former attorney at Marshall Dennehey, filed claims alleging workplace harassment and related misconduct during his tenure at the firm’s Cleveland office. In response, Marshall Dennehey and Cleveland managing attorney Leslie M. Jenny sought to compel arbitration under existing employment agreements that required disputes to be handled outside the public court system.
However, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth District rejected that request in a February 26, 2026 ruling, allowing Hansbrough’s harassment lawsuit to proceed through traditional litigation channels.
The appellate court’s decision effectively sends the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, opening the door for
public examination of the allegations rather than confidential arbitration.
Federal Law Plays Key Role
At the center of the ruling is the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act a law enacted to prevent employers from requiring employees to
resolve harassment claims in private arbitration settings.
Marshall Dennehey argued that arbitration clauses in Hansbrough’s agreements should still apply. But the appellate court determined that the federal statute overrides such contractual provisions when harassment allegations are involved.
This marks the first time an Ohio appellate court has applied the federal law to allow harassment-related claims to proceed in open court.
The decision reinforces the statute’s growing influence across employment litigation and signals that arbitration agreements may no longer serve as an automatic shield for employers facing workplace harassment claims.
Gender-Neutral Protections Confirmed
In a notable clarification, the court emphasized that protections under the Ending Forced Arbitration Act apply equally to all employees regardless of gender.
While workplace harassment claims have historically centered on female plaintiffs, this ruling confirms that male employees may also rely on the federal law to challenge arbitration requirements when alleging sex-based harassment.
This interpretation broadens the practical scope of the statute and highlights its relevance across the full spectrum of workplace environments, including law firms and other professional settings.
Implications for Law Firms and Employers
The decision carries significant implications for law firms and corporate employers that rely on arbitration clauses to manage employment disputes.
For decades, arbitration has served as a preferred mechanism for resolving workplace conflicts privately limiting reputational risk and avoiding public scrutiny. However, federal reforms like the Ending Forced Arbitration Act are reshaping that landscape.
By allowing Hansbrough’s harassment claims to proceed in court, the Ohio appellate ruling signals a shift toward increased
transparency and accountability in professional workplaces.
Legal analysts suggest that this case may serve as an early indicator of how courts nationwide will interpret and apply the federal law moving forward.
Employers may now face heightened exposure to public litigation in disputes involving harassment allegations even when arbitration agreements are in place.
Broader Legal Trend
The ruling aligns with a broader national trend aimed at reducing reliance on forced arbitration in sensitive workplace matters.
Legislators and policymakers have increasingly pushed for reforms that allow employees to pursue harassment claims openly, rather than through confidential proceedings that often limit public awareness of alleged misconduct.
Within the legal industry where arbitration clauses are common this development could influence how firms structure employment agreements in the future.
Employers may need to reassess dispute resolution strategies to ensure compliance with evolving federal protections.
What Happens Next
With arbitration now off the table, Hansbrough’s lawsuit will return to the trial court for continued litigation.
The underlying harassment allegations remain unresolved, and the case will proceed through the judicial process where evidence and claims may be examined publicly.
The appellate court’s ruling does not determine liability but establishes that the claims deserve to be heard in court rather than confined to private arbitration.
A Turning Point for Workplace Disputes
As courts continue interpreting the Ending Forced Arbitration Act, this case represents a meaningful step in expanding access to judicial forums for harassment claims.
For attorneys and professionals navigating workplace disputes, the ruling underscores a changing legal environment one where mandatory arbitration may no longer be the default path for resolving harassment allegations.
For law firms, it serves as a reminder that
employment practices and dispute resolution policies must evolve alongside federal legal protections.
Looking to advance your legal career with greater transparency and workplace protections? Discover thousands of verified legal opportunities at
LawCrossing your trusted source for law firm, in-house, and government positions. Take control of your future today and find the right legal role that aligns with your goals.
