Greenlaw v. Acosta

Filing 174

ORDER re 171 , 172 Court or Jury Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 3/9/2025. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ROSEMARY GREENLAW,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE COURT OR JURY TRIAL

v.

10
11

Case No. 18-cv-04932-VKD

VINCENT N. MICONE,
Defendant.

12
13
14

The Court thanks the parties for their March 8, 2025 supplemental briefs (Dkt. Nos. 171,

15

172) regarding Ms. Greenlaw’s claim for monetary relief and whether this matter should proceed

16

to a trial by jury. Based on the parties’ arguments, the Court rules as follows:

17

Although Ms. Greenlaw’s operative amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8) does not specify the

18

particular section of the Rehabilitation Act on which her disability discrimination/disparate

19

treatment claim is based, section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act provides her sole remedy for

20

alleged disability discrimination in federal employment. See Boyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 752 F.2d

21

410, 413 (9th Cir. 1985); Gunzenhauser v. Garland, No. 22-cv-03406-WHO, 2023 WL 2167387,

22

at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (citing cases). The remedies, procedures, and rights for claims

23

under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act are incorporated from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

24

of 1964:

25
26
27
28

The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16), including the
application of sections 706(f) through 706(k) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)
through (k)) (and the application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(e)(3)) to claims of discrimination in compensation), shall
be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this
title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the

final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final
action on such complaint. In fashioning an equitable or affirmative
action remedy under such section, a court may take into account the
reasonableness of the cost of any necessary work place
accommodation, and the availability of alternatives therefor or other
appropriate relief in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate
remedy.

1
2
3
4
5

29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part:

6

If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or
is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice
charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from
engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such
affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is
not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without
back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor
organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful
employment practice), or any other equitable relief as the court
deems appropriate. Back pay liability shall not accrue from a date
more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the
Commission. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable
diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall
operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1).
In his March 8, 2025 supplemental briefing, the Secretary argues that the monetary relief

15
16

Ms. Greenlaw seeks properly is characterized as back pay. See Dkt. No. 171 at ECF 3. The

17

Secretary maintains that back pay is equitable relief that must be tried to the Court and not a jury.1

18

See id. at ECF 4-5. Although Ms. Greenlaw appears to agree with the Secretary that her requested

19

monetary relief cannot be considered front pay, she contends that her claimed monetary relief

20

cannot be considered back pay, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1), because she is not also seeking

21

the remedy of reinstatement. See Dkt. No. 172 at ECF 2. Ms. Greenlaw maintains that her claim

22

for monetary relief is a claim for damages as a legal, not equitable, remedy that must be tried to a

23

jury. Alternatively, Ms. Greenlaw requests that this matter be tried to an advisory jury. See id. at

24

ECF 4-6.

25

The Court appreciates the parties’ input on this issue, particularly on the weekend prior to

26

the scheduled start of trial. The Court agrees with Ms. Greenlaw that determining whether there is

27
28

1

The Secretary did not affirmatively raise this issue with the Court, or otherwise object to a jury
trial, until after the Court’s March 7, 2025 order inviting briefing. See Dkt. No. 167.
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

a right to a jury trial on a particular issue is often a difficult question. See generally, e.g., Day v.

2

GEICO Cas. Co., No. 21-cv-02103-BLF, 2023 WL 2250273, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023)

3

(citing cases). At this time, and under the circumstances presented in this matter, the Court is not

4

prepared to say whether Ms. Greenlaw’s claimed monetary relief is back pay, or whether the status

5

of back pay as an equitable remedy clearly precludes back pay as a legal remedy in all

6

circumstances. Compare Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 218 n.4

7

(2002) with Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1068, 1069 & n.7, n.9 (9th Cir.

8

2005).

9

Accordingly, the Court will proceed with a jury trial as presently scheduled to begin on

10

March 10, 2025. Following the trial, and to the extent there remains a dispute about the legal or

11

equitable nature of Ms. Greenlaw’s requested monetary relief, the Court will give the parties an

12

opportunity to brief the matter further, including whether the jury’s verdict should be deemed

13

advisory and the matter should be decided by the Court on the trial record presented. See Lutz,

14

403 F.3d at 1067 (district court has discretion to decide matter tried to jury either after a new trial

15

or on the record of the first trial).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2025

18
19
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3