Curtis v. Loether
415 U.S. 189 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial extends to causes of action created by statute that seek to enforce legal rights and remedies, such as compensatory and punitive damages, which are traditionally determined in actions at law.
Facts:
- Julia Curtis, a Black woman, attempted to rent an apartment from the Loethers, who are white.
- The Loethers refused to rent the apartment to Curtis.
- Curtis alleged that the Loethers' refusal was based on her race.
- This refusal formed the basis of a claim of housing discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Procedural Posture:
- Julia Curtis sued the Loethers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging housing discrimination.
- Curtis sought injunctive relief, punitive damages, and later added a claim for compensatory damages.
- The Loethers, in their answer, made a timely demand for a jury trial.
- The District Court denied the Loethers' request for a jury trial.
- Following a bench trial, the District Judge found that the Loethers had discriminated and awarded Curtis $250 in punitive damages but no actual damages.
- The Loethers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing they were wrongly denied a jury trial.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the Seventh Amendment guaranteed the right to a jury trial in this case.
- Curtis then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Seventh Amendment require a jury trial upon demand in a private civil action for monetary damages under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes, the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial upon demand in an action for damages under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Seventh Amendment applies not only to common law actions as they existed in 1791 but also to actions enforcing statutory rights if the statute creates legal rights and remedies enforceable in an action for damages in an ordinary court of law. A damages action under § 812 of the Act is an action to enforce 'legal rights' because it is analogous to a tort action and seeks a remedy—actual and punitive damages—that is the traditional form of relief offered in courts of law. The court distinguished this from administrative proceedings or claims for purely equitable relief, like backpay in Title VII cases, where a jury trial is not required. Policy concerns about potential jury prejudice are insufficient to override the clear constitutional command of the Seventh Amendment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial is not frozen in time to the common law actions of 1791. It establishes that the right applies to new, statutorily created causes of action, so long as the action seeks to adjudicate legal rights and provide legal remedies. The Court's analytical focus on the nature of the remedy sought (legal damages vs. equitable relief) provides a durable framework for determining when a jury trial is constitutionally required for claims arising under modern federal statutes. This decision significantly impacts civil rights litigation by confirming the right of either party to demand a jury in cases seeking monetary damages for discrimination, which can affect trial strategy and outcomes.
Unlock the full brief for Curtis v. Loether