Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, Second District · 2026 · Published opinion (PDF)

Summary for general education only—not legal advice. This is not a Workplace Rights Advocacy case result. See Case Results for the firm’s own verdicts and settlements.

A published California Court of Appeal decision about FEHA, sexual orientation harassment, and when workers can refuse forced arbitration. Trevor Joseph Decloedt, a gay patient-services employee at RadNet imaging centers in Los Angeles, sued RadNet and several managers and coworkers after he says a coworker repeatedly condemned his homosexuality as sinful, threatened him, pulled his hair, and physically attacked him—while supervisors and HR took no meaningful action despite his reports. He also alleged FEHA discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and other claims.

RadNet moved to compel private arbitration under an agreement Decloedt signed when he was hired. The trial court denied that motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that harassment because of sexual orientation is a form of sexual harassment under FEHA—applying the same logic the U.S. Supreme Court used in Bostock for Title VII and building on California’s Quilala decision. Because Decloedt sufficiently pleaded a FEHA sexual harassment claim, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) applied and blocked enforcement of the arbitration clause for the case.

In plain English, this decision protects workers in several ways. If you allege severe or pervasive orientation-based harassment, California courts may treat that as sexual harassment—not a lesser or separate category employers can shrug off. And when a sexual harassment dispute is properly pleaded, you may have the right to bring your claims in open court instead of a confidential arbitration the employer chose. The opinion also reinforces that anti-gay animus can support a hostile work environment claim even when the misconduct is not driven by sexual desire—what matters is unwelcome conduct because of sex or sexual orientation that is severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions.

← All law updates