for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

undermining the many cases pursued by the MCAD, including claims of pro se and/or low-wage-earning claimants. (24- 25). Enforcement of arbitration agreements in this circumstance would lead to a procedural morass, whereby the MCAD's enforcement authority is curtailed, but the EEOC's ri.qht to enforce parallel claims continues. (26). Massachusetts public policy provides a second, independent basis for voiding the arbitration agreement. Public policy renders agreements unenforceable where one party has obtained assent through unlawful means or pressure. ln this case, the agreement was obtained by Jodi! by threatening Simmons with termination. should not be permitted to enjoy the benefit of its illegal, coercive conduct. (29-30). The MCAD has taken the position that coerced, Joule prospective waivers of c. 151B rights violates c. 1518 itself, and public policy. All reasonable deference should be accorded to the positions taken by the MCAD. (30-31). Jouli! violated G.L. c. 151B, 5 8, because its coercive conduct has the effect of impairing employee participation in the MCAD's investigations and proceedings. Full participation of complainants has the effect of protecting the particular individual, other co-workers at that employer, arid society in general. Thus, the hurdles imposed by Joule violates broad public policy. (31-32). Moreover, Joule violated G.L. c 1518, 5 4(4A), when it obtained an arbitration agreement by resorting to threats
to the employment relationship. Simmons' option to pursue charges of discrimination using the MCAD forum has beer) determiried by this Court to const-i.tute a c. 151B "right." Joulk's insistence that Simmons sign away that right, under threat of termination, constitutes threats, coercion, and interference with enjoyment of rights. squarely violates. G.L. c. 151B, 5 4(4A). Public policy demands t.hat LJoule not get the benefit of its illegally obtained agreement. (32-42) . Such conduct A third sourcc of public policy i s represented by the common law skepticism of prospective waivers of civil rights. Such pre-dispute waivers take away the deterrent value of our rules, and constitute an invitation to lawlessness. Furthermore, such prospective waiver cuts against our notions of fairness. For example, could a state require a citizen to waive their Miranda rights prospectively, for the rest of thejr lives, in return for a student loan? Marly cases demonstrate resistance to pre- dispute waivers of rights. (42-44). The Federal. Arbitration Act dues not preempt a state rule that refuses to enforce prospective waivers of c. 1518 rights, where the waiver is obtained through threats and intimidation. The FAA does nat protect coerced agreements, and states are permitted to regulate what constitutes coercion, so I.ong as arbitration agreements are subject to the same standards as other agreements. (44-46) 6
Page 1: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPRE
Page 4 and 5: - 11. MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC POLICY I
Page 6 and 7: EEOC V. Waffle House, InC., 122 s.
Page 8 and 9: Wal.ker v. Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114
Page 10 and 11: 1. STATEMENT OF ISSUES siyned by th
Page 12 and 13: STATEMENT OF TAE CASE MELA adopts D
Page 16 and 17: ARmJmwr The Massachusetts Employmen
Page 18 and 19: MCAD to enforce the law and rectify
Page 20 and 21: Labor Comissioner serves simply as
Page 22 and 23: The Supreme Court held that the arb
Page 24 and 25: The MUD was established to enforce
Page 26 and 27: If the private parties agree to res
Page 28 and 29: case in suppori of the Complainant,
Page 30 and 31: Stonehill College, 141 Mass. at. 56
Page 32 and 33: comprehensive scheme to combat disc
Page 34 and 35: een imposed? Or otherwise assure th
Page 36 and 37: G. JOULE'S OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE OFF-
Page 38 and 39: to create a stumbling block. The tr
Page 40 and 41: Moreover, the MCAD wrote in its ami
Page 42 and 43: and remedy violations of the statut
Page 44 and 45: up the substantial right to seek ad
Page 46 and 47: 2. The Threat To Reject. Simmons' F
Page 48 and 49: Components, Inc., 548 F.2d 24, 26 (
Page 50 and 51: nursing home contract was ruled enf
Page 52 and 53: When an employer says, "waive your
Page 54 and 55: Vokovich, 720 F.2d 909, 925 (8th Ci
Page 56 and 57: coerced"). It is up to state law to

for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?