plaintiff including intervening plaintiffs). The Commission’s interests.necessarily align-with that of an intervenor plaintiff if, as here, the Commission chose to pursue a lawsuit against a civil rights violator to vindicate the intervenor plaintiffs rights. To deny an attorneys’ fees award on this ground would seriously undermine the legislative purpose behind the Title VII fee-shifting provision. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Furthermore, Mahoney Burroughs rightfully sought the assistance of legal professionals effectively to navigate the murky waters of his Title VII and Chapter 151B claims without compromising his substantive rights due to procedural error. See New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 68, 71, 100 S.Ct. 2024, 64 L.Ed.2d 723 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The mere involvement of the Commission in
holding that arbitration agreement that did not provide for award of attorney fees to successful title vii claimant was unenforceable because the right to attorneys fees  is central to the ability of persons to seek redress from violations of title vii holding that a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for attorneys fees paid for representation in state administrative proceedings which were necessarily intertwined with plaintiffs federal title vii claim and noting that clearly  an attorney is heeded to assist the plaintiff during the state proceedings holding that title vii plaintiff may bring suit to recover attorneys fees after successfully litigating before a state administrative body holding that the notice requirement is a condition precedent for attorneys fees from section 12069 proceedings in action by plaintiff against state holding that unreviewed state administrative proceedings do not have preclusive effect on title vii claim