Normally employment plaintiffs prefer trial by jury, and exercise their right to such trial. Employers, on the other hand, typically feel juries are less likely than judges to give them a fair shake. Since either party may exercise the right to trial by jury, when this right exists jury trial is therefore the norm.
Sometimes, though, these general tendencies are reversed. When this occurs, it is a sign the non-jury decisisonmaker (judge or administrative agency) is viewed as extremely biased.
Across the river from St. Louis, we see this. Employment plaintiffs in certain Illinois counties routinely file cases without jury demands, and the employers then file jury demands with their answers. This is because biased as though the juries may be, the judges are perceived as worse, due to what is viewed as a corrupt political judicial election process.
Now I’ve discovered that apparently something similar is going on in Massachusetts. In a story I read today, at first I had trouble making sense of the introductory reference to “shielding” citizens from jury trials — as I’ve noted, normally [non-corporate] citizens want jury trials, so why would they seek to be “shielded” from them?
Boston.com carries this AP story:
“Supreme Court declines to hear Mass. discrimination cases” (by MARK JEWELL)
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review four Massachusetts discrimination cases, letting stand a state law that shields citizens from having to defend their cash awards in potentially expensive jury trials.
Employers that lost discrimination lawsuits . . . had asked the high court to review their cases. They argued that the way the state’s anti-discrimination law was being applied was unconstitutional because it does not give employers the same right to a jury review as employees who file complaints with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
The law gives workers the right to bypass the commission’s administrative review process and request a jury review of their discrimination claims . . . In May, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court reversed its own earlier ruling, stripping employers of their right to a jury review of cash awards granted to employees.
The employers challenged that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying it violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the Supreme Court declined to review the matter, the SJC’s latest ruling will stand. . .
The case drew friend-of-the-court briefs from civil liberties groups and anti-discrimination advocates, who argued the 1997 ruling unfairly allowed employers to force workers to enter into expensive court battles. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination was established in part to create an affordable arena for airing discrimination complaints.
“Almost every state has set up a procedure that is less expensive for people who feel they have been discriminated against,” said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Massachusetts chapter. “To force those kinds of people into court really undermines the enforcement of civil rights laws.”
Different states’ discrimination laws have different administrative procedures for processing complaints. In some, state claims may only be litigated administratively; in others, the aggrieved party may choose at a certain point to either continue before the agency or proceed in court.
It still strikes me as odd that employers were so concerned about the right to proceed in court before a jury. Perhaps, by analogy to my above reference to Illinois , it is symptomatic of a deep distrust of a “liberal” Mass. judiciary.
The affordability argument strikes me as phony. A good case will draw support from an attorney willing to litigate for a contingent fee, the world’s best device for providing legal representation to people of lesser means. The others? Well maybe they ought not go forward, in court or otherwise.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by Email
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment