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

damagesattorneyappealtrialmotiondiscriminationcorporationliquidated damagesrespondentjury trial
damagesattorneystatuteappealtrialdiscriminationliquidated damagesrespondentjury trial

Related Cases

Fei Mei Cheng v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Abudu; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
View Case »
Astrue v. Ratliff
View Case »
Salim v. Lynch
View Case »
Fernandez v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lorillard v. Pons

Facts

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. Respondent demanded a jury trial on all issues of fact; petitioner moved to strike the demand. The District Court granted the motion to strike but certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed the appeal and vacated the trial court's order.

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. Respondent demanded a jury trial on all issues of fact; petitioner moved to strike the demand.

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

The ADEA is to be enforced in accordance with the 'powers, remedies, and procedures' of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which includes the right to a jury trial in private actions for lost wages.

The ADEA broadly prohibits arbitrary discrimination in the workplace based on age. 4(a), 29 U.S.C.623 (a). Although the ADEA contains no provision expressly granting a right to jury trial, respondent nonetheless contends that the structure of the Act demonstrates a congressional intent to grant such a right.

Analysis

The court found that the statutory issue was dispositive and did not need to address the constitutional issue. It determined that the ADEA's incorporation of FLSA provisions indicated a congressional intent to provide a right to a jury trial for private actions under the ADEA. The court noted that long before the ADEA was enacted, there was a well-established right to a jury trial in private actions under the FLSA, and Congress was presumed to be aware of this when enacting the ADEA.

Because we find the statutory issue dispositive, we need not address the constitutional issue. The enforcement scheme for the statute is complex — the product of considerable attention during the legislative debates preceding passage of the Act.

Conclusion

The judgment allowing an interlocutory appeal, vacating an order, and ruling that the ADEA and the Seventh Amendment afforded respondent the right to a jury trial on her claim against petitioner for lost wages was affirmed.

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

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in the case because the court affirmed that the ADEA provided her the right to a jury trial on her claim for lost wages.

The judgment allowing an interlocutory appeal, vacating an order, and ruling that the ADEA and theSeventh Amendmentafforded respondent the right to a jury trial on her claim against petitioner, her former employer, for lost wages was affirmed.

You must be