for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

and not mere1.y as 3 neutral farurn, i.n its processing of
Section 5 claims.
D. ‘THE MCAD’S ROLE IS ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE EEOC
As shown above, “an employer cannot preclude a public
enforcement agcricy from bringing an enforcement action for
employee-specific relief by relying on an emp,loyer-employee
arhi tratiori agreemenk . ” Skirchak . v. Dynamics Research
Corp., . . 508 P.3d 19, 58 n.3 (1st. Cir. 2007). The Supreme
Court has identified many factors to assist in determining
whether an agency action is to be precluded by a private
arbitration agreement. As will be shown below, every one
of thosc factors demonstrates that the MCAD is a public
enforcement agency whose section 5 proceedings.are
safeguarded:
Factor 1: Agencies that enforce the l aw and seek
remedies for violations are imune from private arbitration
clauses. Preston, 3.28 S. Ct. at 986-987. The MCAD was
established to enforce c. 1518, and remedy violations of
the law. - SZlonehi.ll . College, -. 443. Mass., at 563 (“The MCAD
was established to enforce the Commonwealth‘s
antidiscrimination laws”); G.L. G. 1518, 5 5; 804 CMR 1.02
(MCAD enforces c. 151B).
Factor 2: The MCAD, like the EEOC, is not merely a
neutral forum for litigating an issue between private
parties. Stonehill College, 441 Mass. at 562-567; compare
Waffle House, Inc., 122 S. Ct. at 761. Rather, both
agencies act in the public interest, to advance a cause.
20