for Suffolk County - Mass Cases
for Suffolk County - Mass Cases
for Suffolk County - Mass Cases
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
F. MCAU AND EEOC PROCEEDINGS ARE INTERWOVEN, AND<br />
INTERFERENCE WITH MCAD ACTIONS WILL CREATE EXTREMELY<br />
DIFFICULT PROBLEMS INVOLVING INEFFICIEN'T, DUPLICATIVE<br />
PROCEEDINGS<br />
A ruling in favor of JoulG would create an<br />
intractable, bureaucratic tangle, with respect to the<br />
parallel proceedings that take place between the MCAD and<br />
EEOC.<br />
The MCAD and EEOC have a work-sharing agreement<br />
which permits claims filed with one to be cross-filed with<br />
the other, and which permits the parallel processing of<br />
claims. The EEOC typically defers to the MCAD's<br />
investigation and adopts the MCAD's findinys. Allowing<br />
employers to interfere with MCAD en<strong>for</strong>cement of c. 15lB<br />
will necessarily impair EEOC processing of those claims.<br />
If EEOC proceedings remain despite an arbitration<br />
agreement, but MCAD proceedings dissolve, there would be a<br />
nightmarish procedural challenge.<br />
go ahead, without the MCAD's salutary input. Meanwhile,<br />
arbitrations would proceed as well. It would result in<br />
inefficient, duplicative proceedings which by all means<br />
should be avoided. Marie, 402 F.3d at 16 (duplicative<br />
arbitration and EEOC en<strong>for</strong>cement action would be<br />
hefficient, disruptive to EEOC procedures, and contrary to<br />
the purposes of the FAA). It would create enormous burdens<br />
on employees, who would have to participate in dual tracks.<br />
Such complexities are unnecessary, and are intrusive on the<br />
contemplated process, and should dri.ve this Court to reject<br />
Joule's position.<br />
26<br />
EEOC proceedings would