for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vokovich, 720 F.2d 909, 925 (8th Cir. 1983) (consent decree containing waivers of future discrimination claims held invalid); United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc., 51’1 F.2d 826, 854-5 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 425 U.S. 944 (1976). Consequently, the common law supports a public policy preventing enforcement of prospective waivers of: c. 151H rights, especially where procured by threats to the employment relationship. D. THE FEDERM ARBITRATION ACT WES NOT PROTECT COERCED AGREEMENTS The rule urged by MELA is one of general application, that an employer may not use threats to employment or other coercion in obtaining prospective waivers of civil riqhts. The rule applies to arbitration agreements, but it applies equally to all waivers of other civil rights, including the right to be free of discrimination and harassment, the right to file claims with investigatory bodies, ‘chc right to assist others in opposing discrimination, and the right to a full panoply of monetary and equitable remedies. Section 5 rights should be protected from coerced prospective waiver no more than these othex rights, but certainly no less. Given that such a defense would protect all civil riqhts equally, whether or not such rights touch upon arbitration, the rule would not be preempted by the Federal. Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. St. Fleur, 450 45
Mass. at 354 (fraud-in-the-inducement defense to an arbitration agreement is valid, and not subject to FAA preemption, because the defense applies to contracts generally, and not just arbitration agreements); Warfield, IS4 Mass. at 398-400 (public policy precluding waiver of any c. 1518 right, unless the written waiver is clear and unmistakable, is not preempted by FAA, because all c. 151B rights are so protected, whether or not arbitration is involved); Feeney, 451 Mass. at 208-210 (class action waiver in an arbitration agreement, that had the effect of prohibiting small consumer protection act claims, violates pub]-ic policy and voids the arbitration provision; and the policy protecting small" c. 93A claims is not preempted by the FAA because it is not inherently antagonistic towards arbitration, and applies to other actions that would impair c. 93A claims). The courts have not, nor could they, authorize coerced arbitration agreements. "[Alrbitration under the [FAA] is a matter of consent, not coercion." Volt Info. Sci., Inc. v. Bd. "._-I of Tr. of Leland Stanford, 109 S. Ct. 1248, 1256 (1989); Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, -_ 115 S. Ct. 1212, 1216 (1995); Waffle House, Inc., 122 S . Cf. aC 769. The Supreme Court has enforced arbitration agreements only in the absence of cvidencc of coercion. Gilmer v. - Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 111 S. Ct. 1647, 1656 (1991) ("There is no indication . . . that Gilrner . . . was 46
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 50 and 51: nursing home contract was ruled enf
Page 52 and 53: When an employer says, "waive your
Page 56 and 57: coerced"). It is up to state law to
show all

for Suffolk County - Mass Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?