for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIF3 iii
STATEMENT OE' ISSUES 1
INTEREST OF' AMICIIS CUR.lAE 1
STATKMENT OF THE: CASE 3
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 3
ARGUMENT 7
I. THE MCAD'S INVESTIGATIVE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
!?UNCTIONS ARE: NOT IJERAILED BY A PRIVATE
I
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OTHER PARTIE3 . 8
A. UNDER PRESTON, A GOVRRNMENTAL PROSECITYOR
RETAINS ITS AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE IAW,
DESPITE AN ARBITRATION PROVTSION SIGNED BY
PRIVATE PARTIES 10
R. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF TIIE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMTSSION ARE NOT STAYED OR
DISMISSED DUE TO ARRITRA1'ION PROVISIONS 11.2
C. THE M a0 EXERCISES POLICE POWER IN THE
PROSECUTION OF' SECTION 5 CLAIMS . 14
D. THE MCAD'S ROLE IS ANALOGOUS TO TINT OF
THE EEOC 20
E. THE MCAD ACTS AS A PROSECUTOR, EVEN WHEN IT
IS ALSO PERFORMING A FACT-k-INDING FUNCTION 24
F. .MCAD AND EEOC PROCEEDINGS ARE INTERWOVEN, AND
INTERFERENCE WITH MCAU ACTIONS WILL CmTE
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS INVOLVING 26
INEFFICIENT, DUPLICATIVE PROCEEDINGS
G.
JOULk'S OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE OFF-POINT
AND ERRONEOUS 27