for Suffolk County - Mass Cases
for Suffolk County - Mass Cases
for Suffolk County - Mass Cases
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MCAD to en<strong>for</strong>ce the law and rectify violations of c. 1518,<br />
and would otherwise eviscerate MCAD's exerci-se of police<br />
powers, the arbi.tration provision should have no effect on<br />
its proceedings.<br />
The Federal. Arbitration Act (F'M) requires that<br />
arbitration agreements - between partics are en<strong>for</strong>ceable.<br />
The FAA has no application here, because in Section 5<br />
actions, the MCAD is a necessary party, and the MCAI) has<br />
never signed the agreement. - See Waffle House, .. I:nc., 122 S.<br />
Ct. 763 & n.9 (EEOC need not arbitrate where it did not<br />
sign agreement).<br />
A contrary ruling would consign thousands of cases,<br />
including pro se cases, to an arbitral panel, where the<br />
MCAD could not provide counsel to assist complainants, and<br />
could not make sure that: the public interest is protected.<br />
The result would be the quick end of many meritorious<br />
cases, as pro se complainants would be overwhelmed, out-<br />
spent and outmaneuvered by wealthier, more sophisticated<br />
corporate defendants. See Feeney, 454 <strong>Mass</strong>. 192 (class<br />
action waiver in arbitration provision, which would lead to<br />
the chilling of small. damages wage cases, i s void under<br />
public policy).<br />
these cases, agreements such as the one at issue would<br />
consign the MCAD to irrelevance, and leave the public<br />
interest unprotected.<br />
Whereas the MCAD was designed to nurture<br />
AS will. be shown, a public policy supported by these<br />
factors precludes en<strong>for</strong>cement of the arbitration agreement.<br />
9