Curtis v. Loether 8212 1035 8212 1973
Citation | 415 U.S. 189,39 L.Ed.2d 260,94 S.Ct. 1005 |
Decision Date | 20 February 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 72,72 |
Parties | Julia Rogers CURTIS, Petitioner, v. Leroy LOETHER et al. —1035. Argued Dec. 4—5, 1973 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution entitles either party to demand a jury trial in an action for damages in the federal courts under § 812 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which authorizes private plaintiffs to bring civil actions to redress violations of the Act's fair housing provisions. Pp. 191—198.
467 F.2d 1110, affirmed.
Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioner.
Robert D. Scott, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Section 812 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 88, 42 U.S.C. § 3612, authorizes private plaintiffs to bring civil actions to redress violations of Title VIII, the fair housing provisions of the Act, and provides that '(t)he court may grant as relief, as it deems appropriate, any permanent or temporary injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order, and may award to the plaintiff actual damages and not more than $1,000 punitive damages, together with court costs and reasonable attorney fees . . ..' The question presented in this case is whether the Civil Rights Act or the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial upon demand by one of the parties in an action for damages and injunctive relief under this section.
Petitioner, a Negro woman, brought this action under § 812, claiming that respondents, who are white, had refused to rent an apartment to her because of her race, in violation of § 804(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). In her complaint she sought only injunctive relief and punitive damages; a claim for compensatory damages was later added.1 After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted preliminary injunctive relief, enjoining the respondents from renting the apartment in question to anyone else pending the trial on the merits. This injunction was dissolved some five months later with the petitioner's consent, after she had finally obtained other housing, and the case went to trial on the issues of actual and punitive damages.
Respondents made a timely demand for jury trial in their answer. The District Court, however, held that jury trial was neither authorized by Title VIII nor required by the Seventh Amendment, and denied the jury request. Rogers v. Loether, 312 F.Supp. 1008 (ED Wis.1970). After trial on the merits, the District Judge found that respondents had in fact discriminated against petitioner on account of her race. Although he found no actual damages, see n. 1, supra, he awarded $250 in punitive damages, denying petitioner's request for attorney's fees and court costs.
The Court of Appeals reversed on the jury trial issue. Rogers v. Loether, 467 F.2d 1110 (CA7 1972). After an extended analysis, the court concluded essentially that the Seventh Amendment gave respondents the right to a jury trial in this action, and therefore interpreted the statute to authorize jury trials so as to eliminate any question of its constitutionality. In view of the importance of the jury trial issue in the administration and enforcement of Title VIII and the diversity of views in the lower courts on the question,2 we granted certiorari, 412 U.S. 937, 93 S.Ct. 2770, 37 L.Ed.2d 396 (1973). 3 We affirm.
The legislative history on the jury trial question is sparse, and what little is available is ambiguous. There seems to be some indication that supporters of Title VIII were concerned that the possibility of racial prejudice on juries might reduce the effectiveness of civil rights damages actions.4 On the other hand, one bit of testimony during committee hearings indicates an awareness that jury trials would have to be afforded in damages actions under Title VIII.5 Both petitioner and respondents have presented plausible arguments from the wording and construction of § 812. We see no point to giving extended consideration to these arguments, however, for we think it is clear that the Seventh Amendment entitles either party to demand a jury trial in an action for damages in the federal courts under § 812.6
The Seventh Amendment provides that '(i)n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre- served.' Although the thrust of the Amendment was to preserve the right to jury trial as it existed in 1791, it has long been settled that the right extends beyond the common-law forms of action recognized at that time. Mr. Justice Story established the basic principle in 1830:
Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446—447, 7 L.Ed. 732 (1830) (emphasis in original).
Petitioner nevertheless argues that the Amendment is inapplicable to new causes of action created by congressional enactment. As the Court of Appeals observed, however, we have considered the applicability of the constitutional right to jury trial in actions enforcing statutory rights 'as a matter too obvious to be doubted.' 467 F.2d, at 1114. Although the Court has apparently never discussed the issue at any length, we have often found the Seventh Amendment applicable to causes of action based on statutes. See, e.g., Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 477, 82 S.Ct. 894, 899, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962) (trademark laws); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103, 115, 29 S.Ct. 474, 479, 53 L.Ed. 720 (1909) (immigration laws); cf. Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 36 S.Ct. 233, 60 L.Ed. 505 (1916) (antitrust laws), and the discussion of Fleitmann in Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 535 536, 90 S.Ct. 733, 736—737, 24 L.Ed.2d 729 (1970).7 Whatever doubt may have existed should now be dispelled. The Seventh Amendment does apply to actions enforcing statutory rights, and requires a jury trial upon demand, if the statute creates legal rights and remedies, enforceable in an action for damages in the ordinary courts of law.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937), relied on by petitioner, lends no support to her statutory-rights argument. The Court there upheld the award of back pay without jury trial in an NLRB unfair labor practice proceeding, rejecting a Seventh Amendment claim on the ground that the case involved a 'statutory proceeding' and 'not a suit at common law or in the nature of such a suit.' Id., at 48, 57 S.Ct. at 629. Jones & Laughlin merely stands for the proposition that the Seventh Amendment is generally inapplicable in administrative proceedings, where jury trials would be incompatible with the whole concept of administrative adjudication 8 and would substantially interfere with the NLRB's role in the statutory scheme. Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966), also relied upon by petitioner, is to like effect. There the Court upheld, over a Seventh Amendment challenge, the Bankruptcy Act's grant of summary jurisdiction to the bankrutpcy court over the trustee's action to compel a claimant to surrender a voidable preference; the Court recognized that a bankruptcy court has been traditionally viewed as a court of equity, and that jury trials would 'dismember' the statutory scheme of the Bankruptcy Act. Id., at 339, 86 S.Ct., at 478. See also Guthrie National Bank v. Guthrie, 173 U.S. 528, 19 S.Ct. 513, 43 L.Ed. 796 (1899). These cases uphold congressional power to entrust enforcement of statutory rights to an administrative process or specialized court of equity free from the strictures of the Seventh Amendment. But when Congress provides for enforcement of statutory rights in an ordinary civil action in the district courts, where there is obviously no functional justification for denying the jury trial right, a jury trial must be available if the action involves rights and remedies of the sort typically enforced in an action at law.9
We think it is clear that a damages action under § 812 is an action to enforce 'legal rights' within the meaning of our Seventh Amendment decisions. See, e.g., Ross v. Bernhard, supra, 396 U.S., at 533, 542, 90 S.Ct., at 735, 740; Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, supra, 369 U.S., at 476—477, 82 S.Ct., at 899. A damages action under the statute sounds basically in tort—the statute merely defines a new legal duty, and authorizes the courts to compensate a plaintiff for the injury caused by the defendant's wrongful breach. As the Court of Appeals noted, this cause of action is analogous to a number of tort actions recognized at common law.10 More important, the relief sought here—actual and punitive damages is the traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law.11
We need not, and do not, go so far as to say that any award of monetary relief must necessarily be 'legal' relief. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 80 S.Ct. 332, 4 L.Ed.2d 323 (1960); Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 60 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946).12 A comparison of Title VIII with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where the courts of appeals have held that jury trial is not required in an action for reinstatement and back pay,13 is instructive, although we of course express no view on the jury trial issue in that context. In Title VII cases the courts of appeals have characterized...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pasco Common Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Benson
...seeks to recover damages for the breach of a statutory duty, such an action sounds in tort. See, e.g., Curtis v. Loether , 415 U.S. 189, 195, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1974) (damages action pursuant to statute sounds in tort because it defines new legal duty and authorizes courts to......
-
Matter of Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.
...courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 193, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 1007, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974). The form of our analysis is familiar. "First, we compare the statutory action to 18th century actions br......
-
McClain v. State
...remedies, enforceable in an action for damages in the ordinary courts of law.’ " Lajara at 1228, quoting Curtis v. Loether , 415 U.S. 189, 193-194, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974). Based on that standard, the New Jersey court found a constitutional jury trial right in a statutory claim......
-
In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Erisa Litigation, No. C2-04-643.
...Money damages are, of course, the classic form of legal relief." 508 U.S. at 255, 113 S.Ct. 2063 (citing Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 196, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974)). The Defendants primarily rely on Crosby v. Bowater, Inc. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Great N'er......
-
Inter Partes Review Passes Constitutional Muster
...the enforcement of statutory rights to an administrative process "free from the structures of the Seventh Amendment." Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 195 (1974); see also Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 418 n. 4. "[W]hen Congress creates new statutory 'public rights,' it may assign th......
-
Federal Circuit Unanimously Upholds The Constitutionality Of Inter Partes Review In MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company
...Seventh Amendment jury right for patent infringement, does not suggest a jury trial right as to patent invalidity, and Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 194 (1974), which found that "the Seventh Amendment is generally inapplicable in administrative proceedings, where jury trials would be inc......
-
Table of Cases
...262 (1899), 1122 Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Academy of Wilmington, Delaware, Inc., 450 F.3d 130 (3rd Cir. 2006), 1616 Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974), Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., United States v., 299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936), 750, 780......
-
Discriminatory housing statements and s. 3604(c): a new look at the Fair Housing Act's most intriguing provision.
...477 U.S. 299, 307 (1986) (similar purpose identified for constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983). (539.) Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 197 (1974); see also United States v. City of Hayward, California, 36 F.3d 832, 839-40 (9th Cir. 1994) (following Curtis in holding that th......
-
Who Should Decide? Judges and Juries in Trademark Dilution Actions - David S. Welkowitz
...Dairy Queen, 369 U.S. 469; Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959). 35. U.S. Const. amend. VII. 36. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 193-94 (1974). 37. Beacon Theatres, 359 U.S. at 501 (quoting Dimick, 293 U.S. at 486). 38. 359 U.S. 500 (1959). 39. Id. at 508-09. decision-mak......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...413-14 (1995); Suja A. Thomas, A Limitation on Congress: "In Suits at Common Law," 71 Ohio St. L.J. 1071 (2010).85. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974).86. See City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707-11 (1999) (plurality opinion).87. See Feltner v. Co......