MIHELICH v. DONAHUE

Filing 11

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Strike. For the reasons set forth in the attached document, Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's jury demand as to her ADEA claim is granted. Defendant's motion is denied as moot in all other respects. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 6/25/2012. (rtt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOY E. MIHELICH,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 11-1520
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service
(“USPS”) Patrick R. Donahoe’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand and Her Requests for
Attorneys’ Fees and Punitive and Compensatory Damages as to Her ADEA Claims (Doc. 4).
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff asserts two claims, one under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., for discrimination against her on the basis of race (Caucasian) and gender
(female), and the other under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., for discrimination against her on the basis of age. Def. Mot. to Strike
¶ 1 (Doc. 4). There is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in actions against the federal
government. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981). A right to a jury trial in these
actions only exists when the Government has “unequivocally expressed” that such a right exists.
Id. (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)).
The statutory language of the ADEA does not confer the right to trial by jury on ADEA
plaintiffs suing the federal government. Id. at 165. While the ADEA expressly provides for jury
trials against private employers and state and local governments, 29 U.S.C. § 626(c), the section
1

of the Act authorizing civil actions against the federal government, 29 U.S.C. § 633a, contains no
such provision. Id. at 162. Accordingly, there is no statutory right to a jury trial in ADEA
actions against the federal government.1 Id.
The Third Circuit case cited by Plaintiff does not alter this conclusion. In EEOC v.
Corry Jamestown Corp., 719 F.2d 1219, 1224-25 (3d Cir. 1983), the Court of Appeals held that
the right to a jury trial existed where the EEOC, a federal entity, sued a private employer on
behalf of an individual. The instant case involves an individual suing a federal entity (i.e., the
USPS). Corry Jamestown Corp. is, therefore, inapplicable to the matter at hand.
Because Plaintiff withdrew her demand for attorney’s fees and punitive and
compensatory damages with respect to her ADEA claim in her amended complaint (Doc. 8),
Defendant’s motion to strike these requests for relief is denied as moot.
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand and her Requests for Attorneys’ Fees and Punitive and
Compensatory Damages as to her ADEA claims (Doc. 4) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand as to her ADEA
claim is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion is denied as moot in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
June 25, 2012
cc (via e-mail):
All counsel of record.
1

If Plaintiff still wishes to have an advisory jury on the question of which prohibited
classification caused the alleged discrimination, Plaintiff may make that request closer to
trial, and the Court will consider the issue then.
2