for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

to create a stumbling block. The trial court correctly
rejected this attempt to interfere with the MCAD's role.
11. MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC POLICY PRECLUDES ENEI3RcEMENT OF A
EWE-DISPUTE WKCVER OF C. 151B RIGHTS, SIGNED AS A
CONDITION OF -!WENT
There is a separate, independent basis for dismissing
Joule's complaint. You18 required that Simmons sign the
arbitration agreement as an obligatory prerequisite of
employment, and warned her that a lack of consent would
result in loss of the job. The Court should not enforce
the arbitration agreement because JoulB's conduct
represents unlawful threats, coercion and interference with
rights, in violation of c. 1518 and public policy. G.L. c.
151B, 55 4(4A), 8.
Near the beginning of Simmons' employment, she was
forced to si.gn an arbitration agreement. App. 78. The
agrement stated, "I will not be offered employment until I
sign and return this agreement." App. 78. After Simmons
was hired, she was told by a superior that she would have
to sign "if she wanted to work at Joule." App. 68. Thus,
it was made clear that the employment relationship would
not continue unless and until Simmons prospectively signed
away her c. 151B forum rights.
Joule considered the retention of c. 151B rights to be
so despicable that it would not consider retaining an
employee that possessed them. As we will see, Joul6's
conduct in obtaining the "agreement" upon threat of
29