## Facts

- A discharged employee sued his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), alleging termination based on age.
- The employee sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- The employee demanded a jury trial on factual issues.
- The employer moved to strike the jury demand, arguing the ADEA did not provide a jury-trial right.
- The district court struck the jury demand but certified the question for interlocutory appeal.
- The court of appeals vacated, holding a jury trial was available for an ADEA claim seeking lost wages.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among circuits on jury trials in ADEA lost-wage suits.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADEA authorizes a trial by jury in a private civil action seeking lost wages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
- The Court held that, in a private ADEA action for lost wages, a jury trial is available when demanded by a party.
- The Court relied on the ADEA’s enforcement provisions, which incorporate the “powers, remedies, and procedures” of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- The Court concluded Congress intended ADEA lost-wage claims to be treated like FLSA wage claims, which had long been tried to juries.
- The Court found additional support in the ADEA’s express authorization of “legal or equitable relief,” signaling that at least some ADEA remedies are legal in nature.
- The Court rejected analogies to Title VII, emphasizing differences in statutory text and remedial structure and Congress’s choice to adopt FLSA procedures rather than Title VII procedures.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress incorporates another statute’s established “powers, remedies, and procedures,” it is presumed to incorporate settled interpretations associated with those procedures, including jury-trial practice.
- ADEA claims for lost wages are treated as legal wage claims comparable to FLSA actions for unpaid wages, for which jury trials are available.
- Statutory authorization of “legal” relief indicates Congress contemplated legal claims traditionally tried to a jury, as distinct from purely equitable remedies.
- Differences in statutory design and remedies can defeat attempts to infer jury-trial availability (or unavailability) in one statute from treatment under another statute addressing employment discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that private plaintiffs seeking lost wages under the ADEA have a right to a jury trial on demand, because Congress incorporated FLSA procedures and authorized legal relief, indicating an intent to allow juries to decide liability for wage-type damages.


Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978)