STEPHEN J. HARMON, APPELLANT,
v.
MAY BROADCASTING COMPANY, D/B/A KMTV COLOR TELEVISION CENTER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jury trials are not required for defendants in Title VII suits, and the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
Appellant sued for racial discrimination after being discharged, alleging violation of Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court stru…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Back Pay Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Stephen J. Harmon, a white male, brought suit in the District of Nebraska, alleging that his discharge by May Broadcasting Company, doing business as KMTV Color Television Center, constituted racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)1 and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court2 struck appellant’s request for a jury trial and after trial dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Harmon filed a timely appeal.
We join the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits in holding that jury trials need not be provided defendants in Title VII suits. Slack v. Havens, 522 F. 2d 1091, 1094, (9th Cir. 1975); EEOC v. Detroit Edison Co., 515 F. 2d 301, 308-09 (6th Cir. 1975); Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F. 2d 791, 802 (4th Cir. 1971); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F. 2d 1122, 1125 (5th Cir. 1969). An award of back pay under Title VII for discriminatory employment practices is an integral part of the equitable remedy of reinstatement and is not comparable to damages in a common-law action for breach of employment contract.
The District Court found that “the defendant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that its conduct was based on valid business discretion and judgment and has rebutted any inference or innuendo that plaintiff was released or replaced because of his race or because of the race of the person who replaced him.” After carefully considering the record, the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we conclude that the factual findings of the District Court are not clearly erroneous and that it applied correct principles of law. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion.
. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) provides in pertinent part:
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer — (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; * * *.
. The Honorable Albert G. Schatz, United States District Judge, District of Nebraska.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (U.S. 2002)
-
McKINLEY v. City OF Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
Craft v. Metromedia, Inc., 766 F.2d 1205 (8th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971)
- Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Detroit Edison Co., 515 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1975)
- Isabell Slack and Kathleen Hale v. Havens, 522 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1975)