Wallace v. Magnolia Family Services, LLC
Filing
37
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION. The motion of defendant Magnolia Family Services, LLC, to Strike the Jury Demand, Record Doc. No. 27, is GRANTED for the reasons set forth herein. The clerk is directed to delete the reference to jury trial on the docket sheet of this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 6/11/14. (tbl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANDERSON WALLACE, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-4703
MAGNOLIA FAMILY SERVICES, LLC.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION
Plaintiff, Anderson Wallace, Jr., filed this complaint on June 4, 2013 against
Magnolia Family Services, LLC (“Magnolia”), alleging racial discrimination under Title
VII, discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and negligence under the
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315. Record Doc. No. 1. On September 27th, 2013,
defendant filed a motion to dismiss all claims. I denied defendant’s motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s disparate impact claim, but granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the Americans
with Disabilities Act claim and later dismissed the claims against Magnolia under La. Civ.
Code art. 2315, because plaintiff did not amend his complaint properly to allege a
negligence claim after having been given the opportunity to do so. Record Doc. Nos. 11,
24 and 25.
The motion of defendant Magnolia Family Services, LLC, to Strike the Jury
Demand, Record Doc. No. 27, is currently pending before me. Local Rule 7.5 of the
Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed
and served no later than eight days before the noticed submission date. No memorandum
in opposition to defendant’s Motion to Strike the Jury Demand, Record Doc. 27, submitted
for decision on June 11, 2014, without oral argument, has been timely submitted. Having
considered the record, the applicable law and the written submission of counsel, and for the
following reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
As a general matter, a plaintiff asserting a civil rights claim may recover
compensatory and punitive damages against a respondent who engaged in intentional
discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a(a)(1). However, a plaintiff asserting only a disparate
impact claim cannot recover monetary damages. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1). Under 42
U.S.C. § 1981 a(c)(1), only a plaintiff seeking compensatory or punitive damages may
demand a jury trial. Accordingly, courts have not allowed disparate impact claims to be
tried by a jury.
For example, in Garcia v. Woman’s Hospital of Tex., 143 F.3d 227, 230 (5th Cir.
1998), the Fifth Circuit specifically found that a “jury would have to be dismissed because
[a] disparate impact claim alone cannot be tried to a jury.” In a footnote, the Fifth Circuit
explained:
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII claims could not be
tried to a jury, and compensatory and punitive damages could not be
awarded. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended Title VII to allow
compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination
(i.e.,only), and jury trials were permitted only in cases where compensatory
and punitive damages were proper, in other words, in disparate treatment
cases. . . . Therefore, a jury may not determine the disparate impact claim,
and, if that is the only claim left, there is no need for a jury. Id.
In a separate case filed by Anderson Wallace, Jr., the same plaintiff who has filed
the instant complaint, Magistrate Judge Shushan of this court similarly found that plaintiff
could not recover compensatory and punitive damages for a disparate impact claim
pursuant to Title VII and therefore was not entitled to a jury trial. Wallace v. Terrebonne
Parish Sch. Bd., No. 2:13-cv-00420-SS, 2014 WL 63940, at *1-2 (E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2014).
In this case, after the court’s previous order granting in part defendant’s motion to
dismiss, Wallace retains only a claim of disparate impact for which he cannot recover
compensatory or punitive damages. Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff in this case is
not entitled to a jury trial. Garcia, 143 F.3d at 230; Wallace, 2014 WL 63940 at *2.
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The clerk is
directed to delete the reference to jury trial on the docket sheet of this case.
11th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __________ day of June, 2014.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?