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

damagesattorneystatuteappealtrialmotiondiscriminationliquidated damagesrespondentjury trial
damagesattorneyappealtrialdiscriminationliquidated damagesrespondentjury trial

Related Cases

Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417, 67 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1370
View Case »
Clausell v. Turner, 295 F.Supp. 533
View Case »
Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 227 A.3d 1209
View Case »
Trans World Metals, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 769 F.2d 902, 41 UCC Rep.Serv. 453, 19 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 88
View Case »
Bank South, N.A. v. Howard, 264 Ga. 339, 444 S.E.2d 799, 42 A.L.R.5th 763
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40, 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 885, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8134, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1005

Facts

The respondent, an employee, alleged that she was discharged by her employer due to her age, which violated the ADEA. She sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs, and demanded a jury trial. The District Court granted the employer's motion to strike the jury demand, leading to an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, affirming the right to a jury trial under the ADEA.

Respondent commenced this action against petitioner, her former employer, alleging that she had been discharged because of her age in violation of the ADEA. She sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Issue

Whether there is a right to a jury trial in private civil actions for lost wages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

This case presents the question whether there is a right to a jury trial in private civil actions for lost wages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA or Act), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 88 Stat. 74, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V).

Rule

In a private civil action under the ADEA, a trial by jury is available where sought by one of the parties, as the ADEA's structure demonstrates a congressional intent to grant such a right.

The directive of § 7(b) of the ADEA that the Act be enforced in accordance with the 'powers, remedies, and procedures' of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a significant indication of Congress' intent.

Analysis

The court analyzed the ADEA's provisions, particularly § 7(b), which directs that the Act be enforced in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court noted that the FLSA has been uniformly interpreted to afford a right to jury trial in private actions. By incorporating FLSA provisions, Congress indicated its intention to provide a similar right under the ADEA. The court also distinguished the ADEA from Title VII, emphasizing that the ADEA explicitly provides for 'legal' relief, which implies a right to a jury trial.

We are therefore persuaded that Congress intended that in a private action under the ADEA a trial by jury would be available where sought by one of the parties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that a jury trial is available in private actions under the ADEA for lost wages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, accordingly, Affirmed.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court recognized her right to a jury trial under the ADEA, aligning with the congressional intent reflected in the statute.

The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Marshall, held that Congress intended that in a private action under the ADEA a trial by jury would be available where sought by one of the parties.

You must be