U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 121— JURIES; TRIAL BY JURY

28 U.S.C. § 1875

Protection of jurors’ employment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any permanent employee by reason of such employee’s jury service, or the attendance or scheduled attendance in connection with such service, in any court of the United States.(b) Any employer who violates the provisions of this section—(1) shall be liable for damages for any loss of wages or other benefits suffered by an employee by reason of such violation;(2) may be enjoined from further violations of this section and ordered to provide other appropriate relief, including but not limited to the reinstatement of any employee discharged by reason of his jury service; and(3) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation as to each employee, and may be ordered to perform community service.(c) Any individual who is reinstated to a position of employment in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be considered as having been on furlough or leave of absence during his period of jury service, shall be reinstated to his position of employment without loss of seniority, and shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established rules and practices relating to employees on furlough or leave of absence in effect with the employer at the time such individual entered upon jury service.(d)(1) An individual claiming that his employer has violated the provisions of this section may make application to the district court for the district in which such employer maintains a place of business and the court shall, upon finding probable merit in such claim, appoint counsel to represent such individual in any action in the district court necessary to the resolution of such claim. Such counsel shall be compensated and necessary expenses repaid to the extent provided by section 3006A of title 18, United States Code.(2) In any action or proceeding under this section, the court may award a prevailing employee who brings such action by retained counsel a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. The court may tax a defendant employer, as costs payable to the court, the attorney fees and expenses incurred on behalf of a prevailing employee, where such costs were expended by the court pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. The court may award a prevailing employer a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs only if the court finds that the action is frivolous, vexatious, or brought in bad faith.(Added Pub. L. 95–572, § 6(a)(1), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2456; amended Pub. L. 97–463, § 1, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2531; Pub. L. 110–406, § 19, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4295.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 110–406 substituted “$5,000 for each violation as to each employee, and may be ordered to perform community service.” for “$1,000 for each violation as to each employee.”

1983—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 97–463, § 1(1), substituted designation “(d)(1)” for “(d)” before “An individual claiming”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 97–463, § 1(2), inserted provision empowering the court to tax a defendant employer, as costs payable to the court, the attorney fees and expenses incurred on behalf of a prevailing employee, where such costs were expended by the court pursuant to par. (1) of this subsection and, in existing provisions, substituted “only if the court finds that the action is frivolous” for “if the court determines that the action is frivolous”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable with respect to any grand or petit juror summoned for service or actually serving on or after Nov. 2, 1978, see section 7(a) of Pub. L. 95–572, set out as a note under section 1363 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Paul S. Segal v. Gilbert Color Sys., Inc., 746 F.2d 78 (1st Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paul S. Segal v. Gilbert Color Sys., Inc., 746 F.2d 78 (1st Cir. 1984). · cites it 14× “(Gilbert), charging that Gilbert had discharged him because of the demands inherent in his service as a federal grand juror, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1875 (the Act). 1 While Segal originally *80 contended, in a pendent state law claim, that Gilbert had also wrongfully…”
JUROR 157 v. Corp., 710 F. Supp. 324 (M.D. Fla. 1989). · cites it 29× “Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on October 12, 1988, alleges that defendants terminated her employment because of her service on a federal petit jury in the criminal trial of Carlos Lehder in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1875 . In the Complaint, plaintiff demanded a trial by jury.”
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “Jury System Improvement Act of 1978, 28 U. S. C. § 1875 (d)(2). 29. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat.”
Wanda Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., et, 755 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: Wanda Rogers appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Bromac Title Services, and its owner, Title Resource Group, LLC (collectively, “Bromac” or “appellees”), dismissing her claims under the Jury…”
Lyman v. State, 824 P.2d 703 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 7× “Lyman filed suits concurrently in federal district and state superior court alleging two violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1875 , 1 one violation of 42 U.”
Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C. § 1875 (d)(2) (awarding "reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs" to employers who successfully defend against suits that are "frivolous, vexatious, or brought in bad faith" by employees claiming to have been punished for jury service); 15 U.”
Patrick Shea v. Cnty. of Rockland, Rockland Cnty. Health Ctr., 810 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1987). · cites it 5× “The present appeal requires us to decide for the first time whether compensatory damages may be recovered under the statute against an employer that violates the statute for an employee’s non-economic loss.”
In Re Grand Juror Webb, 586 F. Supp. 1480 (N.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 7× “* This matter is before the Court on an order to show cause why the Erie Supply Company of Norwalk, Ohio (“Erie”) should not be found in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1875 because of its discharge of Ronnie Webb, a member of a special grand jury empanelled in the Northern District of…”
Jeffreys v. My Friend's Place, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 639 (M.D. Tenn. 1989). · cites it 11× “In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that MFP, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1875 and Tennessee law, intimidated, coerced, threatened to discharge and did discharge him because he was selected for jury service by the courts.”
U.S. Ex Rel. Madonia v. Coral Springs P'ship, Ltd., 731 F. Supp. 1054 (S.D. Fla. 1990). · cites it 7× “At that time this court tried to head off the problem by sending a letter to her employer, SUPERCUTS, with a copy of the federal statute on Protection of Juror’s Employment, 28 U.S.C. § 1875 , and a copy of Protection of Juror’s Employment, 28 U.”
Rose Bordanaro v. John McLeod Appeal of City of Everett, Edward Connolly, & Donald Bontempo, 871 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1989). “2d at ISO-31, “something more than a bald, unsupported amount is necessary.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.”
Chang v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 606 F. Supp. 1161 (D.R.I. 1985). · cites it 2× “In Segal , an employment discrimination case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1875 , the court of appeals recognized that [I]f an aggrieved employee is to be made whole in the face of his employer’s insensitivity .”
Show all 75 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.