Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-CV-07533
May 26, 2004
ORDER
NOW, this 26th day of May, 2004, it appearing that by Rule 16 Status Conference Order of the undersigned dated March 12, 2003 the within matter was attached for both a jury and non-jury trial; it further appearing that by Non-Jury Trial Attachment Order of the undersigned dated June 26, 2003 the issues of plaintiff's entitlement to reinstatement, the length of time front pay damages are available to plaintiff and all claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") were scheduled to be tried before the court; for the reasons articulated herein, we sua sponte reconsider our previous determination, _____
Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, No. 222, §§ 1-13, as amended, 43 P. S. §§ 951-963.
IT IS ORDERED that the Non-Jury Trial Attachment Order of the undersigned dated June 26, 2003 is vacated in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all issues other than those equitable decisions that must be made by the court regarding the practicability of reinstatement shall be tried before a jury as originally requested by plaintiff in his Complaint filed September 26, 2002.
"In an action in federal court for money damages pursuant to the PHRA, a plaintiff has an independent right, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, to a trial by jury."Graham v. Toltzis Communications, Inc., No. Civ.A. 98-6269, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5191 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2000); See Also Cortes v. R.J. Enterprises, Inc., 95 F. Supp.2d 255 (M.D. Pa. 2000);Grabosky v. Tammac Corporation, 127 F. Supp.2d 610 (M.D. Pa. 2000).
In Wertz v. Chapman Township, 559 Pa. 630, 741 A.2d 1272 (1999) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined that there is no right to a jury trial under the PHRA. However, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not have the power to determine when a plaintiff has a right to a jury trial in federal court, and its decision inWertz does not purport to do so. See Graham, supra; Wertz, supra.
Accordingly, because we determine that we erroneously denied plaintiff a jury trial on his PHRA claims, we vacate our June 26, 2003 Non-Jury Trial Attachment Order and reinstate plaintiff's jury demand on his PHRA claims. The issue of the practicability of plaintiff's reinstatement will be determined by the court.