for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

up the substantial right to seek administrative and
judicial remedies." - Warfield, 454 Mass. at 399 6 n.13
(emphasis added)
JoulG's brief twice quotes this phrase from n. 13 of
the Warfj-eld case out of context, and falsely asserts that
it stands for the proposition that an arbitration agreement
wil.1. succes.sfully trump section 5 clai.ms.
Brief, at 12, 31. Ilowever, the Warfield court was not
sayiny that mandatory axbitration agreements are always
valid as against administrative remedies. Rather, Warfield
was making the point that MELA is making here, that to the
extent that a mandatory arbitration agreement is enforced,
it represents a limitation on c. 151B rights.
Joul& Principal -
Furthermore, the context of the statement in n. 13 is
the Supreme Judicial Court's suggestion that public policy
may preclude enforcement of such waivers of c. 1518 rights.
A fuller version of the quote follows:
An agreement to arbitration employment discrimination
claims represents a limited waiver of Tights under
G.L. c. 151B. An employee who agrees to arbitration
such a claim of course does not forgo the substantive
fights afforded by the statute [citation omitted], but
does give up the substantial right to seek
administrative or judicial remedies. Because it is
not raised here, we do not reach the question whether,
in view of our public policy proscribing employment
discrimination, any additional protections beyond
unambiguous language may be necessary before an
employment contract may provide for limitations on the
rights and remedies spelled out in G.L. c. 151B.
Warfield, 451 Mass. at 399 n. 13 (emphasis added). Thus,
mandatory arbitration impairs c. 151R rights, and raises
35