Abstract

Since Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, courts have been virtually unanimous in denying jury trials in private actions based on illegal job discrimination. In doing so, they have relied on two arguments. The first is based on the statute's language. The second emphasizes the equitable nature of the available remedy. Recently, however, in Beesley v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama refused to follow this considerable precedent. The court's refusal highlights the need for a careful reappraisal of this issue.

This Note demonstrates that courts have consistently engaged in a truncated analysis of whether the statute authorizes jury trials in Title VII civil actions. It also illustrates the courts' failure to rigorously analyze whether there is a constitutional right to a jury trial under Title VII. This Note then discusses the various arguments courts have used to deny jury trials in Title VII civil actions, each of which is contrary to existing Supreme Court precedent. Next, this Note concludes that jury trials cannot be withheld from Title VII civil actions on any principled grounds. Finally, this Note explores the reasons why courts consistently deny jury trials in Title VII civil actions and why they might be beginning to re-examine those prior holdings.

How to Cite