for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
ejection, undermined public policy so fundamentally as to void the agreement. Courts do not enforce contracts, including arbitration agreements, that violate public policy. Feeney, 454 Mass. at 199-200 (class action waiver in arbitration agreement voj,ded as it would have the effect of chilling consumer cl-aims). Courts have long refused to give effect to purported waivers of statutory rights, where enforcement of the waiver would do vj.olence to the public policy underlying the statute. EEOC v. Astra USA, Inc., 94 F.3d 738, 744 (Isf Cir. 1996); Beacon Hill _I - Civic Ass'n v. Ristorante Toscano, Inc., 422 Mass. 318, 320-323 (1996). Arbitration agreements may be voided by public policy where an employer uses unlawful means to obtain the agreement.. See St. Fleur, - 450 Mass. at 350-356 (arbitration agreement can be voided where the employer fraudulently induces assent to the contract). The MCAD has clearly taken the position that forced, prospective waiver of section 5 rights violates c. 1518, and thus, becomes unenforceable in light of public policy. ". Wellington case, Appeals Court No. 2009-P-2137, the MCAD took the position khat, "An employer that requires a pre- dispute waiver of a 5 5 right as a condition of employment violates G.L. c. 151B, § 8 and/or $ 4(4)." Addendum E, at 3 n.4. For example, j.n a brief filed in the MBA v. 30
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 30 and 31: Stonehill College, 141 Mass. at. 56
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 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?