for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
arbitration, and Urnits on EEOC enforcement actions would create a substantial disincentive to employees to file discrimination charges with the EEOC. - Waffle House,-, 122 S. Ct. at 765 n.11. The Supreme Court emphasized a reluctance to enforce a remedy that impairs the EEOC's ability to investigate and choose enforcement priorities from a broad sample of claims. Id. All these factors supported the highest court's conclusion that arbitration was inapplicable to an EEOC enforcement action. The Federal Arbitration Agreement does not compcl a different result. -. Waffle House, Inc., 122 S. Ct. at 763. The FAA requires courts to place arbitration contracts on "equal footing" with other contracts, and requires arbitration only when the parties to an actions have agreed to do so. Id., at 763. As a party to its enforcement action, the EEOC i.s not bound by an agreement it never signed. - Id. agency, the FAA does not apply. - Id., at 763 & n.9; see -- also Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 16 (lSt Cir. 2005) In the absence of an agreement signed by the ("The EEOC is a nonparty to the arbitration agreement and therefore cannot be bound by it"). C. THE MCAD EXERCISES POLICE POWER IN THE PROSECUTION OF SECTION 5 CLAIMS An examination of claims processed by the MCaD (Section 5 claims) shows that the MCAD, like the EEOC, functions in a prosecutorial rol.e, and not merely as an independent arbiter. 14
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 14 and 15: undermining the many cases pursued
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 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?