for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

campaign againsl: union constitut.ed interference and
coercion, because i.n its literature, "the threat was only
thinly veiled that. thc acceptance of that contract was a
sine qua rion of recmpl.oyment") .
The line between acceptable hard bargaining and one
that is threatening varies, depending upon the rights at
issue, and the underlying public policy.
Universal Maritime .. . Servi.ce -. Corp., 119 S. Ct. 391, 396
(1998). For example, an employer may tell an employee,
"you will work here for $10.00 an hour; take it: or leave
it." The resulting contract is enforceable, and not
coercivc, because an employer is generally entitled to
retain an at-will employee on terms satisfactory to the
employer. Hard bargaining involving compensation (beyond
minimum wage) is l.egitimate, and is not an actionable
threat.
- See Wright - v.
However, an employer may not tell an employee, "we'll
only retain you if you promise to acquiesce to sexual
harassment; take it or leave it." - See Beaupre, 50 Mass.
App. at 495-496. That contract is the result of an
unlawful threat or coercion, and it is precisely the
conduct that c. 3.51B, S§ 4(4A) & 4(5) sought to prohibit.
- Id. Hard bargaining over c. 151B rights is impermissible.
A waiver of important civil rights must not be a
condition of: employment.
This prhciple is demonstrated in
a backward €ashion in the case ol Miller v. Cotter, 448
Mass. 671 (2007), where an arbitration agreement in a
40