for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

Moreover, the MCAD wrote in its amicus brief in the
case of St. Fleur v. WPI Cable Systems 450 Mass. 245
(20081, that a coerced arbitration agreement signed as a
condition of employment may constitute of per se violation
of G.I.. c. 151B, 5 4 (4A). Addendum -. F, at 22-23. With
section 4(4A) in mind, the MCAD also wrote,
The Commission views compulsory pre-dispute
arbitration agreements presented as a condition of
employment as violating the public's interest in fair,
open and public proceedings envisioned by the
Legislature through G.L. c. 151B. . . . Moreover,
arbitration agreements where the employer exacts a
waiver by coercion, threats, or intimidation, of any
right granted or protected by Chapter 1518, may
constitute a per se violation of G.L. c. 151B. . . .
The Commission believes that such agreements violate
the Camonwealth's anti-discrimination statute and are
therefore unenforceable.
Addendum F, at 8 (emphasis added). The MCAD is accorded
deference in its reasonable interpretation of C. 1518.
-. Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co-.", 434 Mass. 521, 534,
536 (2001) ("We have consistently granted deference to MCAD
decisions and policies").
invalidate the agreement based on Joule's coercive conduct
in inducing the "agreement. 'a
-I
MEIA urges this Court to
' A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court,
Rent-a-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson -1 2010 U.S. Lexis 4891
(June 21, 2010), heid that employers can impose agreements
that require arbitrators, and not courts, to rule on the
enforceability of arbitration agreements. Arbitrators, for
many reasons, are institutionally inclined to favor the
enforcement arbitration agreements. Once an arbitrator has
found an agreement enforceable, a litigant is unlikely to
obtain de novo court review, as arbitration decisions are
upheld, even if they are based on an error of law. Advest,
31