Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER granting 20 Motion for Jury Trial by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/1/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01232-LTB-MJW
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLLEGEAMERICA DENVER, INC., n/k/a CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER
EDUCATION, INC., d/b/a COLLEGEAMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before me on Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Jury Trial [Doc # 20]. The EEOC
concedes that it failed to demand a jury trial within the time set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) but
asks that I exercise my discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b) to nonetheless order a jury trial on
its claim for retaliation under the ADEA. In support of its request, the EEOC notes that it did
request a jury trial on the Civil Cover Sheet filed with its Complaint and that this case is in its
earliest stages with no discovery undertaken and no trial date set. The EEOC also notes that the
Tenth Circuit has stated that in exercising its discretion under Rule 39(b), a court “should grant a
jury trial in the absence of strong and compelling reasons to the contrary.” AMF Tuboscope, Inc.
v. Cunningham, 352 F.2d 150, 155 (10th Cir. 1965).
Defendant objects to the EEOC’s request and cites the relatively small amount of
monetary damages the EEOC seeks to recover and the case of Nissan Motor Corp. v. Burciaga,
982 F.2d 408 (10th Cir. 1992), as grounds for its denial. In Nissan, the Tenth Circuit held that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s untimely request for a
jury trial under Rule 39(b) where the petitioner’s failure to make a timely jury demand was the
result of “mere inadvertence.” Id. at 409. The untimely request for a jury trial at issue in Nissan,
however, was made more than two years after the case was filed. Id.
Under the circumstances of this case, I conclude that there is no strong or compelling
reason to deny the EEOC’s request for a jury trial. Conversely, there are many factors that
weigh in favor of granting the EEOC’s request including the fact that the right to a jury trial is a
fundamental right. AMF Tuboscope, Inc., 352 F.2d at 155. In addition, the EEOC made its
request for a jury trial less than two months after the deadline under Rule 38(b) had passed, and
Defendant will not suffer any delay or prejudice from the granting of the EEOC’s request since
this case is in its earliest stages.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the EEOC’s Motion for Jury Trial [Doc # 20] is
GRANTED on all issues triable to a jury.

Dated: May

1 , 2015 in Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE