for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Stonehill College, 141 Mass. at. 562-563; compare Preston, -, , I.I. .,,". ., . ., -.. . - 120 S . Ct. at 387; Waffle House, Inc. 122 S . Ct. at 765. Factor 3: Section 5 claims, as 1iti.gated within the Commissj.on and later appealed in Court, are prosecuted in the name of the agency, pursuant to its police powers, just as EEOC enforcemcnl: actions are prosecuted in that agency's name. Stonehill College, 441 Mass. at 563, 567; Thurdin, 452 Mass. at 442; In re Mohawk - Greenfield Motel Corp., 239 B.K. at 6-9; G.L. c. 1518, 5 5, 2; G.L. c. 1518, 5 6; Superior Court Standing Order 1-96(2); compare Waffle House, Tnc., 122 S. Ct. at 758, 759, 761-766 Factor 4: The MCAD, and not the individual complainant:, controls the Section 5 claim, and is master over thc prosecution of the action, which parallels the EEOC's role. Stonehill College, 441. Mass. at 563, 567 (section 5 actions are "directed" and "prosecuted" by the Commonwealth); 804 CMR 1.20(3) (MCAD schedules public hearing at its discretion); 804 CMR 1.09(5)(a) & (b)(2) (MCAD, or its designee, presents the complainant's evidence at public hearing); 804 CMR 1.18(4) (MCAD may dismiss even meritorious cases in its discretion); compare - Waffle House, 12% S. Ct. at 762-763 (EEOC controls the prosecution of its enforcement action) . Factor 5: The MCAD, like the EEOC, controls the relief sought. I- Stonehill College, 441 Mass. at 567-568 (MCAD accorded discretion and authority to fashion remedial rel.i.ef) ; 801 CMR 1.15 (6) (MCAD approves private settlement 21
agreements prior: to dismissal, Lo protect the public interest); 801 MCR 1.20(3) (a) (6); compare Waffle House, - Inc., 122 S. Ct. at 762-763. Factor ._ 6: I - -. Remcdies are sought by both the MCAD and EEOC to further the purposes of the undarl.ying anti- discri.mination statutes, and in support of the public interest. Stonchil.1. College, , 441. Mass. at 563 ("the commission is empowered to fashion equitable remedies designed chiefly to protect and promote the broader public interest in eradicating systemic discrimination"): G.L. c. 151B, § 5, 2; 804 CMR 1.18(1) (c), 1.22(1); compare Waffle House, Inc., -- 122 S. Ct. at 765. Factor 7: To the extent that the MCAD pursues a Section 5 claim, the proceedings are exclusive. G.L. c. 1518, 5 9, I 1; - see - also .I- 'dast Chop Tennis - Club, 364 Mass. at 448. EEOC enforcement actions are similarly protected. __I Waffle House, Inc., 122 S. Ct. at 763. Factor - 8: Neither the MCAD nor the EEOC have signed the arbitration agreement at issue, and both have signaled their refusal to be bound by such agreements. 804 CMR 1.13(4) (no waiver agreements shall affect the MCAD's right to enforce the law); Waffle House, Inc. -- 122 S. Ct. at 763 & n.9. -, Factor 9: Divesting the MCAD of jurisdiction .in this circumstance would generate an enormous disincentive to the filing of MCAD complaints, which would damage the MCAD's fact-finding and enforcement role, and undermine its 22
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 22 and 23: The Supreme Court held that the arb
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 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?