for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

Moreover, there i s no agreement to enforce, as the MCAD is
an essential party in a Section 5 claim, and the MTAD has
not agreed to arbitration,
A. UNDER PRESTON, A GOVERNMENTAL PROSECUTOR RETAINS ITS
AUTHORITY TO ~ENMRCE THE LAW, DESPITE AN ARRITRATION
PROVISION SIGNED BY PRXVATE I'IIRTIES
It is a given that agencies acting in the ro1.e of
prosecutor are not displaced by an arbitration agreement
signed by private actors. -- See - Pceslon v. Perrer, 128 S.
Ct. 978, 986-987 (2008). 'To do SO would be like requi.ring
police and prosecutors to refrain from investigating crimes
and prosecuting wrongdoers based on private prospective
agreements between criminals and victims. Such ~1 state of
affairs violates public policy, because enforcement of the
law protects society as a whole, as well. as individual
interests.
The predispute agreements of victims of illegal
conduct do not limit the police power of the government.
For example, a prosecutor may prosecute a criminal, even
when the crime victim does not want the crirnhal
prosecuted.
lawlessness.
A contrary rule would be an invi.tation to
The -_- Preston case involved a fee dispute involving an
artist and an alleged talent agent, in California.
Preston, 128 S. Ct. at 984. California has a statute
regulating talent agencies that directs its Labor
Commissioner to determine disputes arisi.ng under the law's
scope. Id., at 984-985. In determining such disputes, the
10