Opinion ID: 757630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to a Jury

Text: 3 The District Court rejected Frizzell's jury demand and proceeded to conduct a bench trial on her FMLA and THRA claims, entering judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals the rejection of her jury demand on both statutory construction and constitutional grounds. We first look to whether the FMLA requires a jury trial. See Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, ----, 118 S.Ct. 1279, 1283, 140 L.Ed.2d 438 (1998) (Before inquiring into the applicability of the Seventh Amendment, we must 'first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.' ) (quoting Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 417 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987) (alteration in original)). Because we hold that the FMLA provides a right to a jury trial, we do not reach the Seventh Amendment issue. 4 The FMLA does not expressly provide for the right to a jury trial. However, the structure of the remedial provisions of the FMLA, the reference in the FMLA's legislative history to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA), and other fragments of FMLA legislative history reveal Congress's intent to create a right to a jury trial in the FMLA. To date, three district courts have held that the FMLA includes the right to a jury trial. See Bryant v. Delbar Prods., Inc., 1998 WL 546382, at  12- 13 (M.D.Tenn. Aug.27, 1998) (holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on the issues of back pay and liquidated damages, and this Court will decide the remaining equitable issues, such as reinstatement and front pay); Helmly v. Stone Container Corp., 957 F.Supp. 1274 (S.D.Ga.1997) (holding that the FMLA includes a right to a jury to determine liability and damages); Souders v. Fleming Cos., 960 F.Supp. 218 (D.Neb.1997) (holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial to determine liability and back pay). 5 First, the structure of the FMLA's remedial provisions indicates that Congress intended to create a right to a jury. In the section describing the remedies available under the FMLA, Congress distinguishes between damages and equitable relief: 6 (1) Liability 7 Any employer who violates section 2615 of this title shall be liable to any eligible employee affected-- 8 (A) for damages equal to-- 9 (i) the amount of-- 10 (I) any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or 11 (II) in a case in which wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation have not been denied or lost to the employee, any actual monetary losses sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation, such as the cost of providing care, up to a sum equal to 12 weeks of wages or salary for the employee; 12 (ii) the interest on the amount described in clause (i) calculated at the prevailing rate; and 13 (iii) an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to ...; and 14 (B) for such equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion. 15 (2) Right of action 16 An action to recover the damages or equitable relief prescribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained against any employer.... 17 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (emphasis added). The distinction between damages and equitable relief reflects Congress's intent to make juries available to plaintiffs pursuing remedies that fall under section 2617(1)(A), while leaving it to the judge to determine whether equitable relief is warranted under section 2617(1)(B). While Congress's intent would be clearer if the FMLA included the word legal to label the damages available under 2617(1)(A), see Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 583, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978), the FMLA's division between damages and equitable relief still indicates an intent to make juries available. 18 Second, the FMLA's legislative history link to the FLSA reveals Congress's intent to include a right to a jury in the FMLA. In Lorillard, the Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) provides a statutory right to a jury trial. See id. at 580-81, 98 S.Ct. 866. The Lorillard Court in part relied on the reference in the text of the ADEA to the remedial terms of the FLSA. 1 See id. Although the FLSA fails to provide expressly for a right to a jury, courts have uniformly interpreted [the remedial provisions of the FLSA] to provide a right to a jury trial. Feltner, 523 U.S. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1284 (citing Lorillard, 434 U.S. at 580-81, 98 S.Ct. 866). Thus, the Lorillard Court concluded that the ADEA's reference to the FLSA indicated that the ADEA includes a right to a jury trial. See 434 U.S. at 580-81, 98 S.Ct. 866. Because the legislative history of the FMLA reveals that Congress intended the remedial provisions of the FMLA to mirror those in the FLSA, we infer that Congress also intended to provide a right to a jury trial for claims of damages falling under section 2617(1)(A) of the FMLA. See S.REP. NO. 103-3, at 35 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 37 ([The FMLA's] enforcement scheme is modeled on the enforcement scheme of the FLSA.... The relief provided in FMLA also parallels the provisions of the FLSA. Section 107 provides for injunctive and monetary relief for violations of the act.). The District Court relied in part on Title VII and ERISA case law to conclude that the remedy of back pay under the FMLA is equitable. Because the FMLA's link to the remedial provisions of the FLSA is stronger than it is to Title VII or ERISA, we rely on case law under the FLSA rather than Title VII or ERISA. 19 Third, other pieces of legislative history support our conclusion that Congress intended to include a right to a jury trial in the FMLA. During floor debates, a member of Congress opposed to the FMLA stated that under the FMLA, [e]mployers will be subject to a Federal jury trial and possible damages. 139 CONG. REC. H391 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 1993) (statement of Rep. Fawell); see also id. at H445 (In the private sector and noncongressional public sector in this bill, the bill allows all covered employees to file a civil suit for damages, including a jury trial, for any of the myriad potential violations of the act....). Those members of the House Committee on Education who opposed the FMLA also indicated that the FMLA provided for jury trials. See H.R.REP. NO. 103-8(I), at 72 (1993) (noting that the enforcement structure of the bill has been simplified; however, it still retains the same two enforcement pillars [of an earlier version]--that is, DOL enforcement and private law suits, with jury trials). 20 Because the FMLA includes a right to a jury and plaintiff's request for damages is sufficient to trigger this statutory right to a jury trial, we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial.