Omotosho v. Giant Eagle, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12202, 2014 WL 356595, 997 F. Supp. 2d 792 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party challenging a jury selection process under the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA) for a fair cross-section violation must make a prima facie showing that the distinctive group is underrepresented and that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion inherent in the jury selection process itself, rather than external factors or the system's inaction in counteracting those factors.
Facts:
- Giant Eagle, Inc., a regional supermarket chain, fired Ernest E. Omotosho, an African American stock clerk, for allegedly consuming an unpaid food item in violation of company policy.
- Omotosho believed he was wrongfully discharged due to his race, alleging that white employees who committed similar or worse infractions were not terminated.
- The trial of Omotosho's racial discrimination claim involved an eight-member jury, all of whom were Caucasian.
- No African Americans were present on the 24-individual panel from which the jury for Omotosho's trial was selected.
- As of March 2012, African Americans comprised only 3.46% of the 2,458 names in the qualified jury wheel for Youngstown, Ohio, despite making up 9.5% of the voting-age population in the Youngstown community.
- The Northern District of Ohio's jury selection plan dictates that the source of names for potential jurors shall be derived from general election voter registration lists provided by the Ohio Secretary of State.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest E. Omotosho filed a complaint in Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas against Giant Eagle, Inc., alleging racial discrimination (Count One), breach of contract (Count Two), libel and defamation (Count Three), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Four).
- Giant Eagle, Inc. removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio based on federal question jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
- The District Court denied Omotosho's motion to remand the case, affirming federal jurisdiction.
- Prior to trial, Counts Two and Four were dismissed by stipulation of the parties, and Count Three was dismissed by the Court as untimely.
- The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial on Count One, Omotosho's claim of unlawful discharge based on race.
- At the start of voir dire (jury selection), Omotosho moved to stop the proceedings, noting that no African Americans were on the 24-member panel. The court denied the motion but scheduled a hearing.
- After the hearing, but prior to opening statements, Omotosho again moved for a 'mistrial' (interpreted as a motion to stay proceedings), contending a fair jury had not been selected. The court again denied the motion but allowed Omotosho to further investigate jury selection procedures.
- After the jury returned an unanimous verdict in favor of Giant Eagle, Inc., and the court entered judgment, Omotosho timely moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.
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 a district court's jury selection process violate the Jury Selection and Service Act's fair cross-section requirement when African Americans are significantly underrepresented in the qualified jury wheel, and the plaintiff attributes this underrepresentation to the exclusive use of voter registration lists combined with a failure to proactively counteract the higher geographic mobility of African Americans?
Opinions:
Majority - Benita Y. Pearson, District Judge
No, a district court's jury selection process does not violate the Jury Selection and Service Act's fair cross-section requirement in this case because while African Americans are significantly underrepresented, the plaintiff failed to show that this underrepresentation was due to systematic exclusion inherent in the jury selection process itself. The Court found that African Americans are a distinctive group and acknowledged that their representation in the Youngstown qualified jury wheel (3.46% of names vs. 9.5% of voting-age population, representing a 63.7% comparative disparity) was not fair and reasonable. However, the Court rejected Omotosho's theory that systematic exclusion resulted from the exclusive reliance on voter registration lists combined with a failure to proactively counteract the higher geographic mobility of African Americans. The Court reasoned that "systematic exclusion" requires evidence of active discrimination or a procedure inherently causing the underrepresentation (e.g., an opt-out mechanism that disproportionately affects a group), not merely the system's inaction to mitigate external social or economic factors like mobility or voter registration rates. The Court emphasized that voter registration lists are the presumptive statutory source for jurors and their exclusive use has been consistently upheld unless compiled discriminatorily. Furthermore, the plaintiff's statistical evidence, while suggesting higher mobility rates, did not sufficiently prove that this mobility was the definitive cause of the underrepresentation in the qualified wheel, as opposed to other unidentified factors.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for proving "systematic exclusion" under the JSSA's fair cross-section requirement, particularly in civil cases. It distinguishes between active exclusionary mechanisms (like discriminatory opt-out policies or erroneous database exclusions) and the passive impact of external socioeconomic factors (like residential mobility or voter registration rates) on jury demographics, even when those impacts lead to significant underrepresentation. The ruling emphasizes that the JSSA primarily guards against flaws within the jury selection system itself, rather than requiring the system to actively counteract broader societal trends or individual choices. Future litigants challenging jury pools must demonstrate a direct link between a specific, inherent feature of the jury selection process and the underrepresentation of a distinctive group, rather than relying on the system's failure to offset external factors.
