Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases  
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Key Word Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Law Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog

 


« 11th - No class certification for claimed failure to pay for all hours worked | Main | CA - Last chance agreement cannot waive statutory right to notice and hearing »

MA - Arbitration agreement did not cover state statutory discrimination claims (6-1)
July 29, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

From today's Employment Law Memo:

Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med Cntr (Massachusetts 07/27/2009)

Warfield sued her employers claiming gender-based discrimination and retaliation in violation of state statute. The trial court denied the employers' motion to compel arbitration; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Warfield had been employed as an anesthesiologist for 20 years before being appointed anesthesiologist-in-chief. At that time she signed an arbitration agreement which in part provided, "Any claim, controversy or dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or its negotiations shall be settled by arbitration." Nothing in the agreement referred to employment discrimination statutes or claims.

The court found that such claims are subject to arbitration but that this agreement did not cover them. In doing so, the court announced a state law rule of interpretation:

"Our interpretive rule states only that as a matter of the Commonwealth's general law of contract, a private agreement that purports to waive or limit - whether in an arbitration clause or on some other contract provision - the employee's otherwise available right to seek redress for employment discrimination through the remedial paths set out in c. 151B, must reflect that intent in unambiguous terms."

The DISSENT argued that the matter was arbitrable because the contract language is "free of ambiguity."

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Advanced Search.