for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

The Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement
did not undermine the EEOC's enforcement action, and that
the EEOC may continue to obtain victim-specific relief on
behalf of the complainant in court. This result obtains
for a number of reasons.
The EEOC action was brought in the name of the EEOC to
vindicate the public interest, and the EEOC did not sign
the arbitration agreement. Waffle House, Inc., 122 S. Ct.,
at 761-766.
in the EEOC's suit, she does not control the prosecution of
the claim, nor does she dictate its prayer for relief.
Id., at 762-763. It i s the EEOC that is master of its
cause, and the statute confers on the agency the authority
to define the contours of the public's interest in the
case. Id., at 763, 766. "[Tlhe EEOC docs not function
I
While an individual complainant may intervene
simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of
private parties." z., at 761.
To the extent that the EEOC pursues an enforcement
action, the complainant has no independent cause of action.
Waffle House, Inc., 122 S. Ct., at 763. The Court noted
that the EECC's attempted conciliation duplicated some of
the benefits of arbitration. E., at 762 n.7. The anti-
discrimination statutes, and the FAA, fail Lo suggest that
an arbitration agreement would alter or limit the EEOC's
statutory function. Id. at 761, 762.
The Supreme Court reasoned that a large and rising
number of workers are being subjected to mandatory
13