for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

for Suffolk County - Mass Cases for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

masscases.com
from masscases.com More from this publisher
20.07.2013 Views

Labor Comissioner serves simply as an impartial arbiter; it is not a party to the case, nor is it acting as an advocate advancing a cause. Id., at 987. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that. an arbitration provision signed by the pri-vate parti.es was suffjcient to compel arbitration. However, the Supreme Court was careful to distinguish the Preston facts from a si-tuation in which the state agency exercises prosecutorial authority to investigate, enforce the law and remedy violations. "Enforcement of the parties' arbitration agreement in this case does not displace any independent authority the Labor Commission may have to investigate and rectify violations of the TAA." Preston, 120 S. Ct. at 986-987. "Ferrer argues [that] the arbitration clause in his contract with Preston leaves undisturbed the Labor Commissioner's independent authority to enforce the TAA. (citation omitted]. And so it my." Preston, Id., at 987. The Preston arbitration provision was enforced because it did not prevent the Labor Commission from exerci.si.ng its independent authority to enforce the statute. Court was careful to point out that "the Labor Commissioner functions not as an advocate advancing a cause before a tribunal authorized to find facts and apply the law; The Supreme instead, the Commissioner serves as an impartial arbiter." Preston, 128 S. Ct. at 987. Thus, Preston establishes that. an arbitration agreement may divest an agency of the role 11

of independent arbiter, but it may not divest the agency of its role in acting as a prosecutor to investigate violations, enforce the law, and rectify the harm. - Id., at 986-987. B. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF TIIE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ARE NOT STAYED OR DISMISSED DUE TO ARBITRATION PROVISIONS The protection of an agency's prasecutorial function finds further expression in EEOC v. Waffle House, hc., - 122 S. Ct. 754 (2002), which held that a private arbitration agreement does not affect enforcement actions of the ELOC nor docs it. narrow the ranye of remedies the EEOC is entitled to seek. In Waffle House, an employee signed an arbitration agreement at the outset o€ employment. 122 S. Ct., at 158. Sixteen days later, the employee suffered a seizure and was discharged soon thereafter. - Id. The employee filed a timely handicap discrimination charge with the EEOC, but did not initiate arbitration. - Id. The EEOC investigated the complaint and attempted to conciliate. I Waffle House, Inc., 122 S. Ct. at 758. Next, the EEOC filed an enforcement action in Federal Court in its own name in the public interest, as it is authorized to do by statute. Id., at 758, 759, 761. The complaint alleged 'chat the employee was terminated because of his disability, and requested injunctive relief to eradicate the effects of the discrimination, and to compensate the employee. -- Id. at 758. 12

Labor Comissioner serves simply as an impartial arbiter;<br />

it is not a party to the case, nor is it acting as an<br />

advocate advancing a cause. Id., at 987. Under these<br />

circumstances, the Supreme Court held that. an arbitration<br />

provision signed by the pri-vate parti.es was suffjcient to<br />

compel arbitration.<br />

However, the Supreme Court was careful to distinguish<br />

the Preston facts from a si-tuation in which the state<br />

agency exercises prosecutorial authority to investigate,<br />

en<strong>for</strong>ce the law and remedy violations. "En<strong>for</strong>cement of the<br />

parties' arbitration agreement in this case does not<br />

displace any independent authority the Labor Commission may<br />

have to investigate and rectify violations of the TAA."<br />

Preston, 120 S. Ct. at 986-987. "Ferrer argues [that] the<br />

arbitration clause in his contract with Preston leaves<br />

undisturbed the Labor Commissioner's independent authority<br />

to en<strong>for</strong>ce the TAA. (citation omitted]. And so it my."<br />

Preston, Id., at 987.<br />

The Preston arbitration provision was en<strong>for</strong>ced because<br />

it did not prevent the Labor Commission from exerci.si.ng its<br />

independent authority to en<strong>for</strong>ce the statute.<br />

Court was careful to point out that "the Labor Commissioner<br />

functions not as an advocate advancing a cause be<strong>for</strong>e a<br />

tribunal authorized to find facts and apply the law;<br />

The Supreme<br />

instead, the Commissioner serves as an impartial arbiter."<br />

Preston, 128 S. Ct. at 987. Thus, Preston establishes that.<br />

an arbitration agreement may divest an agency of the role<br />

11

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!