IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT, : CIVIL ACTION NO.

: 02-cv-4421

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ, :

:

Defendants. :

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND

Defendants, The Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce, Inc., John J. (Bud) 

Aiken, and Mickey Glantz, by and through their counsel, Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.,

hereby file Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand. In support thereof, Defendants

aver the following:

1. Plaintiff instituted the instant action in this Court on July 3, 2002. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a claim under the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment to the

Pennsylvania Constitution for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes a demand for a jury trial.

3. The Pennsylvania legislature has not afforded an individual a right to a jury trial

under the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 5
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court strike the Plaintiff’s

demand for a jury trial. 

Respectfully submitted,

SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/ Sidney L. Gold, Esquire SG1387 

SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE

Identification No.: 21374

1835 Market Street, Suite 515

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 569-1999

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: September 9, 2005

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 2 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT, : CIVIL ACTION NO.

: 02-cv-4421

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ, :

:

Defendants. :

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND

I. INTRODUCTION:

Plaintiff instituted the instant action in this Court on July 3, 2002. Plaintiff’s Complaint

asserts a claim under the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania

Constitution for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes a

demand for jury trial. Under Pennsylvania law, a jury trial is not available absent express

statutory authorization. The Pennsylvania legislature has not afforded the right to a jury trial

under the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

Accordingly, the Court should grant the Defendants’ Motion and strike the Plaintiff’s demand for

a jury trial.

II. ARGUMENT:

It is well established law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the General

Assembly may enact legislation providing for a trial by jury for any cause of action. However,

where legislation does not provide for a trial by jury, a statutory action shall be tried without a

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 3 of 5
jury unless Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees a jury trial. Ihnat v.

Pover, 2003 WL 22319459 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2003) (unreported) (a copy of this opinion is attached

hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”). 

Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires a jury trial only where the

common law provided for a jury trial in 1790. In determining whether a statutory action is

governed by Article I, Section 6, a court must determine whether the causes of action residing in

the litigation existed at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1790 and if so, whether there

existed a right to a jury trial for these causes of action. See Mishoe v. Erie Insurance Co., 824

A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2003) (a party is not entitled to a jury trial in an action for bad faith against an

insurer because the cause of action did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Pennsylvania

Constitution); Wertz v. Chapman Township, 559 Pa. 630, 741 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 1999) (a plaintiff

seeking money damages under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act was not entitled to a jury

trial because no cause of action for sexual harassment existed in 1790); and Commonwealth v.

One (1) 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 530 Pa. 523, 610 A.2d 36 (Pa. 1992) (the owner of property

subject to forfeiture under the Controlled Substances Forfeitures Act was entitled to a jury trial

because there was a right to a jury trial in forfeiture actions in 1790). 

In the instant case, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in enacting the Pennsylvania

Equal Rights Amendment, did not provide a right to a jury trial. Accordingly, the Court must

examine the underlying theories asserted in Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff asserts claims of hostile

work environment sexual harassment and retaliatory termination. Clearly, these causes of action

did not exist in 1790 when the Pennsylvania Constitution was adopted. As such, the Plaintiff is

not entitled to a jury trial in this case.

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 4 of 5
III. CONCLUSION:

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should grant the Defendants’ Motion and strike

the Plaintiff’s jury demand. 

Respectfully submitted,

SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/ Sidney L. Gold, Esquire SG1387 

SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE

Identification No.: 21374

1835 Market Street, Suite 515

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 569-1999

Attorneys for Defendants

 

Dated: September 9, 2005

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 5 of 5