Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantappealtrialmotiondiscriminationjury trialequitable relief
contractplaintiffdefendanttrialpleamotion

Related Cases

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26, 57 USLW 4898, 20 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1216, 18 Fed.R.Serv.3d 435, 19 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 493, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,855
View Case »
Pinto v. Spectrum Chemicals and Laboratory Products, 200 N.J. 580, 985 A.2d 1239, 108 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1070, 30 IER Cases 367
View Case »
Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So.2d 501, 17 A.L.R.3d 1308
View Case »
Evergreen West Business Center, LLC v. Emmert, 354 Or. 790, 323 P.3d 250
View Case »
Marder v. Realty Const. Co., 84 N.J.Super. 313, 202 A.2d 175
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 47 F.R.D. 327, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2664, 1 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 637, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9950, 12 Fed.R.Serv.2d 958

Facts

Johnson was discharged by the defendant in March 1966, allegedly due to his race, while the defendant claimed it was due to his unsatisfactory attendance. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission without relief, Johnson sought back pay for the difference between his current lower wages and his previous earnings. He also attempted to represent a class of individuals seeking equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race.

The plaintiff, Johnson, was discharged by the defendant in March, 1966, allegedly ‘because of his race or color’. Defendant contends the discharge was for a different cause: the unsatisfactory attendance record of the plaintiff.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's claims for back pay and injunctive relief were primarily legal or equitable, thus determining the right to a jury trial.

The substance of plaintiff's contention is that the issues involved in this case are essentially equitable in nature and not appropriate for trial by jury.

Rule

The court determined that the claims presented were essentially contract claims, which are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Such a contract claim is, of course, one which the defendant is entitled to have a jury decide.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the claims, concluding that the request for back pay was a legal issue rooted in a breach of employment contract, which warranted a jury trial. The court noted that any equitable relief sought was incidental to the legal claims and dependent on the resolution of the wrongful discharge issue.

The court cannot forecast what plaintiff might plead or allege. All that is present at this time is a claim for back wages (in some amount which has not yet been demanded), growing out of an alleged wrongful discharge.

Conclusion

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury demand and granted the motion for an interlocutory appeal, recognizing the legal complexities involved in the case.

The motion to strike the jury demand is denied.

Who won?

The defendant prevailed in the motion to strike the jury demand because the court found that the claims were primarily legal in nature, thus entitling the defendant to a jury trial.

The court reaches no conclusion as to whether the class of ‘potential applicants' is a proper one under Rule 23 in light of the facts in this case as they now stand.

You must be