for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

nursing home contract was ruled enforceable, becausc it was I not a condition of admission. was not a condition of admission was repeatedly stressed as an important factor favoring enforcement. Id. at 673, 680, 681, 682 n.15. Consequently, the act of conditioning employment upon a prospective waiver of c. 1518 rights must be deemed coercive. The fact that the agrement - c. Youle Interfered With Simmons‘ Rights Joule interfered with Simons‘ enjoyment of her section 5 rights when it required her to prospectively sign away those rights, on threat of termination. Under the statute, it is unlawful to “threaten . . . another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by [c. 1SlBl .“ G.L. c. 151B, 5 4 (4A). Joule acted in a manner calculated to interfere with rights, i.e. that is, to prevent. Simmons from enjoying those rights for future claims. G.L. c. 1518, 5 4(4A) + “Interference” with rights is a term with broad application to practices designed to diminish rights. Walker v. Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001) See (discussing similar provision in federal fair housing act). When an employer attempts to have an employee sign a contract that limits their c. 151B rights, that can seen as improper interference. Fox example, in I Melnychenko v. 84 - Lumber Co., 424 Mass. 285, 295 (1997), the employer sought to have an employee sign away his rights to assist a CO- worker in the co-worker’s sexual harassment case. The 41
Supreme Judicial Court found that the attempt tu extinyuish this right through a contract would have warranted a finding that the company attempted to interfere wi.th the employee's rights. -~ Id. Thus, a contractual waiver of rights demanded by an employer may form the basis of unlawful interference with enjoyment of rights. 4 A New Jersey Superior Court has found that mandatory arbitration constitutes unlawful "interference" under a provision similar to section 1(4A). Ackerman v. The Money Store, 728 A.2d 873, 878 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1998). In Ackerman -.-r the plaintiff was fired for refusing to agree to a pre-dispute arbitration provision. anti-discrimination statute, like c. 151H, 5 4(4A) makes it unlawful to "coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of . . . any right granted or protected by this act." N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(6). The court noted that the arbitration provision amounted to a waiver of procedural rights. at 878-879. After an extensive analysis, the court held that conditioning employment on agreement to mandatory arbitration constitutes actionable interference with those rights. - Id. at 879-880. -, The New Jersey - Id. at 877; 4 Firing an individual based on protected status may also constitute interference with rights. NLRB v. Horizons -- Hotel Corp., 49 F.3d 795, 804 (ISt Cir. 1995); Navarro v. Pfizer Cory., 261 F.3d 90, 95 (lSt Cir. 2001); --- Barbour v. Qnmi.cs Research Corp., 63 F.3d 32, 37 (lSt Cir. 1995). Consequently, a threat to fire falls within this category of unlawfu,l conduct. 42 Id.
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 38 and 39: to create a stumbling block. The tr
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?