VICK v. DONAHOE
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re Plaintiff's 56 Motion for Jury Trial on FMLA claim. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 06/29/2022. (lcwk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ELLA D. VICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 14-cv-2193 (TSC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Ella Vick’s lawsuit against the Postmaster General of the United States Postal
Service is scheduled for trial on August 8, 2022. See May 16, 2022, Min. Order. The parties
agree that Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on her claims alleging sex discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and that she is not entitled to a jury
trial on her claim alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. See ECF No. 48. The parties disagree, however, about whether Plaintiff is
entitled to a jury trial on her claim alleging interference and retaliation under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). See id.
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting a jury trial on her FMLA claim, ECF No. 56, Pl.
Mot., which Defendant opposes, ECF No. 57. For reasons explained herein, the court will
DENY Plaintiff’s motion.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“It has long been settled that the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury does not apply
in actions against the Federal Government.” Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981). As
a general principle, “the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to
be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to
entertain the suit.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Pursuant to that
principle, “if Congress waives the Government’s immunity from suit, . . . the plaintiff has a right
to a trial by jury only where that right is one of ‘the terms of [the Government’s] consent to be
sued.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976)). Just as the Supreme
Court has held that a waiver of immunity must be “unequivocally expressed,” so too has it held
that “limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued must be strictly
observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.” Id. at 160-61 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Consequently, a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial against an agency of the
United States only if Congress “clearly and unequivocally” grants such a right by statute. Id. at
162.
II.
ANALYSIS
The court is unaware of any case in this district considering whether Congress “clearly
and unequivocally” granted a right to a jury trial on FMLA claims brought against the federal
government. Courts outside this district, however, have consistently held that no such right
exists. See, e.g., Davis v. Henderson, 238 F.3d 420, 2000 WL 1828476, at *2 (6th Cir. 2000)
(“Nowhere in the FMLA does Congress unambiguously grant the right to a jury trial against any
defendant, let alone an agency of the United States.”); Griego v. Brennan, Civ. No. 16-947
JCH/LF, 2017 WL 3397373, at *2 (D.N.M. Aug. 8, 2017) (“Congress has not explicitly granted
FMLA claimants the right to a jury trial against the government.”); Bonzani v. Shinseki, 895 F.
Supp. 2d 1003, 1011 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Because the FMLA does not contain any express
provisions granting a right to a jury trial, the government has not consented to a trial by jury in
FMLA claims against the government.”); Grandberry v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 2:09-cv-2300,
2
2009 WL 4254459, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2009) (“Defendants are also correct that a jury
trial is unavailable for FMLA claims against the Federal Government.”); Steinhardt v. Potter,
326 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (finding “no language in the FMLA or in any judicial
precedent that supports a finding of a right to a jury trial in FMLA actions against the
government.”). This court, reviewing the text of the statute, reaches the same conclusion: the
FMLA does not “clearly and unequivocally” grant a right to a jury trial in suits brought against
the federal government.
Despite the case law outside this district, as well as the plain language of the FMLA,
Plaintiff argues that the court may nonetheless infer a jury trial right from the FMLA’s
legislative history. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the FMLA’s “structure” and its “link” to the
Fair Labor Standards Act reveals Congress’s implicit intent to create a right to a jury in the
FMLA. Pl. Mot. at 2–4. In support, Plaintiff points to a Sixth Circuit case, Frizzell v. Southwest
Motor Freight, in which the court inferred that the FMLA’s legislative history revealed
Congress’s implicit intent to create a right to a jury trial in an FMLA suit brought against a
private defendant. 154 F.3d 641, 644 (6th Cir. 1998). But that case, involving a private
defendant, did not trigger the same questions of sovereign immunity at issue here, where the
federal government is the defendant. See Griego, 2017 WL 3397373, at *2 (rejecting similar
argument); Steinhardt, 326 F. Supp. 2d at 452 (same). Indeed, just two years after deciding
Frizzell, the Sixth Circuit emphasized this distinction when it held that “[r]egardless of whether
there is a right to a jury trial under the FMLA against a private defendant,” a plaintiff “has no
right to a jury trial against the Postal Service” absent a clear and unequivocal grant of such right
by statute. Davis, 238 F.3d 420, 2000 WL 1828476, at *2 (citing Lehman, 453 U.S. at 162).
Simply put, “the plaintiff in an action against the United States has a right to trial by jury only
3
where Congress has affirmatively and unambiguously granted that right by statute.” Lehman,
453 U.S. at 168. Plaintiff has pointed the court to no authority holding otherwise. Consequently,
the court concludes that Plaintiff does not have a right to a jury trial against the government on
her FMLA claim. See id. at 162.
III.
CONCLUSION
For reasons explained above, the court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion and order that her
FMLA claim be heard not by a jury, but by the court.
Date: June 29, 2022
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?