strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial. Two Supreme Court decisions handed down just this year persuade me that this motion must be denied.
In Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1974), the Court unanimously rejected the argument here proffered by the union that the Seventh Amendment is inapplicable to causes of action arising from statutes.
Curtis involved a suit for damages for violation of the fair housing provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Court held that such an action, if viewed properly as one for damages only, is a legal claim requiring a jury trial on the demand of either party, and if the legal claim is joined with an equitable claim, the right to trial by jury on the legal claim, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact. 94 S. Ct. at 1009-10.
Two months later, in Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363, 94 S. Ct. 1723, 1729, 40 L. Ed. 2d 198 (1974),
the Court repeated the thrust of Curtis, supra, that the Seventh Amendment "requires trial by jury in actions unheard of at common law, provided that the action involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law." See also Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S. Ct. 894, 8 L. Ed. 2d 44 (1962), cited approvingly in Curtis v. Loether, supra; Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S. Ct. 948, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988 (1959).
In support of its motion the union relies on Brady v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 504 (D. Del. 1961), affirmed, 401 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1048, 89 S. Ct. 681, 684, 21 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1969), reh. denied, 394 U.S. 955, 89 S. Ct. 1272, 22 L. Ed. 2d 492, wherein the district court denied a jury trial to a plaintiff suing his union and employer for discharging him allegedly in violation of the Railway Labor Act. The court there grounded its decision on two points: (1) the primary relief sought by plaintiff, reinstatement, was equitable in nature, while the punitive damages prayed for were unobtainable and other monetary compensation requested was incidental; and (2) the statutory mandates of the Railway Labor Act respecting union security do not embrace actions at common law and are outside the scope of the Seventh Amendment. Although I believe Brady arguably is distinguishable as a suit entirely in equity, to the extent that it conflicts with Curtis v. Loether, supra, it obviously no longer is controlling.
In the case at bar, plaintiff is seeking relief both at law and in equity. Predicating jurisdiction upon Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 412, he alleges breach of contract, interference with contractual relationship, and conspiracy to harm him as against one or both defendants. He has requested monetary damages, both in the form of an accounting for all lost income, and a request for compensation for all other damages proximately caused him by defendants, and for injunctive relief against further injury by defendants. Under Curtis v. Loether, supra, plaintiff is entitled to trial by jury on his legal claims, including all issues common to both the legal and equitable claims. The union's motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is therefore denied.
AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 1974, after argument, it is hereby Ordered that:
1. The motion of Philco-Ford Corporation for summary judgment is granted, subject to its agreement to:
(a) submit the question of the legality of plaintiff's discharge to binding and final arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association and before an arbitrator acceptable to the plaintiff, and
(b) permit the plaintiff, if he so chooses, to argue the merits of his grievance either himself or through his own attorney without the advice or assistance of the union or its counsel.
2. The motion of Radio & Television Workers Local No. 101 of the International Union of Electric, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is Denied.
3. The motion of Radio & Television Workers Local No. 101, of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is Denied.
AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 1974, the Order of August 15, 1974, in the above captioned case shall be Amended as follows: Paragraph 2 of the order shall be amended to read "The Motion of Radio & Television Workers Local No. 101 of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, for summary judgment is Denied.