TikTok Discrimination Appeal Answered: Filing Defends Key Worker Protections Against Forced Arbitration
Plaintiff’s answering brief argues that the district court correctly applied federal law exempting sexual harassment claims from forced arbitration
Contact: Nicole Funaro, Public Justice nfunaro@publicjustice.net (203) 435-1722
August 27, 2025
New York, NY – Yesterday, attorneys for former senior TikTok executive Katie Puris filed their response in an appeal by the company to force Puris’s sexual harassment claims into arbitration. Puris was responsible for TikTok’s most recognizable and award-winning campaigns as Global Head of Brand & Creative. She filed her suit after the company allegedly fired her in retaliation for raising concerns about its handling of a sexual harassment complaint reported by Puris. She also alleges that for years prior to that, she experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination based on her sex.
Earlier this year, the Southern District of New York denied TikTok’s motion to compel Puris’s case into arbitration, citing a 2021 federal law that exempts workplace sexual harassment and assault cases from being forced out of court and into arbitration. TikTok appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The plaintiff’s answering brief urges the court to uphold the district court’s January 2025 ruling. It argues that adopting TikTok’s interpretation of how and when to apply the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) would narrow the law’s protections in ways that are inconsistent with Congressional intent and the statute itself.
“Congress enacted the EFAA so that anyone with a case involving sexual harassment or sexual assault can be heard in court, and TikTok wants to strip those protections out of the law,” said Shelby Leighton, a senior attorney at Public Justice, who is co-representing Puris in the appeal. “TikTok’s narrow definition of sexual harassment ignores how pervasive sexism operates in the workplace and would harm the very people the EFAA was designed to protect.”
“The district court correctly held that this case cannot be compelled into arbitration under the EFAA,” said Michael J. Willemin, a partner at Wigdor LLP, who represented Puris in the lower court and is co-representing her in the appeal. “Upholding that decision ensures the law isn’t reinterpreted for the benefit of a single defendant at the expense of workers it was created to protect.”
“TikTok tried to force my federal lawsuit into arbitration, and they lost,” said plaintiff-appellee Katie Puris. “Their appeal is yet another attempt to push my serious claims into a secretive, lawless forum because they don’t want the world to know the truth. I am determined to hold TikTok accountable, and I hope my case ensures that other workers won’t have to fight so hard in the future.”
The case is Puris v. TikTok, No. 25-322-cv, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Wigdor LLP and Public Justice represent plaintiff-appellee Katie Puris in the appeal. A copy of the answering brief may be found here.
# # #
Public Justice takes on the most significant systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We link high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to combat these abusive and discriminatory systems and achieve social and economic justice. For more information, visit www.publicjustice.net