for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

Buster v. .. George W. Moore, Inc., - 138 Mass. 635, 645 (2003)
(Massachusetts Civil. Rights Act) .
ticonomic coercion,
standing alone, may be actionable. - Id. at 616-48.
Joul6's conduct was not ar1 acceptable means for
inducing Complainant' s consent. Condikioning continued
employment on a wai.ver of rights is cocrci.ve. Garrity - v.
- New Jersey, 8.1 S. CL. 616, 618 (3967) (where cmployees were
given the choice hetween waiving their Fifth Amendment
rights and job forfeiture, this constituted coercion);
-_ Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assoc., . .- 50 Mass. App. 480, 495-496
(2000)
(conditioning continued empl.oymcnt on acquiescence
to sexual harassment is coercion under c. 1.51B).
The National Labor Relations Act ("NLKA") contains a
prohibition similar (but not identical) to c. 151B, in that
it prohibits empl.oyers from Bnterfering with, or coercing
employees in their exercise of NLRA rights. 29 U.S.C. 5
l58(a)(1). The First Circuit recognized that supervisors'
mere presence when signatures are solicited, observing who
signed or did not, was coercive in gettiny recognition for
an employer-favored union. NLRB v. Vernitron -I. Elec.
3
Conduct is illeqallv - coercive if it reasonably - tends to
chill the exercise of rights. Hospital Cristo Redentor,
Inc. v. NLRB, 488 F. 3d 513, 517 (lst Cir. 2007)
(interpreting similar provision in the NLRA) . "1.t is the
coercive tendency of employer statements, not their actual
effect, that constitutes a violation of the Act." Id. at
517, quoting NLRB v. . Marine Optical, Inc. 671. F.2d 11, 18
(lst Cir.-'-1982) (emphasis in original). Thus, conduct may
be held coercive, even if they are also susceptible to a
non-coercive interpretation. Marine
F.2d at 18.
38