The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FMLA provides the right to a jury trial.
On August 4, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Grafton Partners L.P. v. The Superior Court of Alameda County (PriceWaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.), Case No. S123344, and held unequivocally that a predispute contractual waiver of the right to a jury trial is not enforceable in a civil action in California.
L. Traywick Duffie addressed the issue of the rising number of collective actions under Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Robert Quackenboss discussed a variety of issues affecting the conduct of jury trials in employment litigation.
On May 30, 2003, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371, PennsylvaniaÂs bad faith statute. The ruling in Mishoe v. Erie Ins. Co. and Hamer v. Federal Kemper Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1153 (Pa. May 30 2003), ends uncertainty about whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial under the statute in state court.
Last January, we discussed the emergence of jury waiver agreements. (See Steering Clear of the Runaway Jury, Thompson Coe Labor & Employment News, Vol. 5, Issue 1). Jury waiver agreements are contractual agreements in which the parties agree that if a dispute arises and suit is filed, the parties waive their right to a trial by jury. The case is still filed in court, but if the matter proceeds to trial, the trial judge hears the testimony and decides the case.
For many years, the real estate industry has taken for granted that pre-dispute jury waivers negotiated in leases, purchase and sale agreements and loan documents will be enforced in California. These waivers have been widely used to resolve disputes by the court, while avoiding many of the potential perils of a trial by jury, such as excessive or inadequate damage awards, jury nullification, bias or prejudice against corporations, delay, inconsistent fact finding, misunderstanding of the law and outright juror misconduct.