Labor & Employment Law

MA - Arbitration agreement did not cover state statutory discrimination claims (6-1)

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."

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on July 29, 2009 (boomark / email).